Protection of Livelihood and Other Significant Impacts on Individual Rights
In administrative law, courts have been particularly eager to intervene into contracts of employment involving statutory authorities where important interests such as a person's livelihood, whether in employment, trade, or the application of a license, are involved.
Both the common law and statute have recognized the importance of protecting this right to a livelihood, and have imposed procedural and in some cases, substantive restraints on the deprivation of such livelihood or job.[313] This important rationale, seen in Knight,[314] was endorsed in Martin where the Court of Appeal stated:...not every decision by a public body to terminate the appointment of the holder of a public office is subject to the duty of procedural fairness. Justice L'Heureux-Dube set out (at 669) three factors for consideration in determining the existence of a duty to act fairly: the nature of the decision to be made by the administrative body, the relationship existing between that body and the individual, and the effect of that decision on the individual's rights.
In essence, the majority in Knight found that, where a public body decides to terminate the employment of an individual, there is a general duty to act fairly if the decision is administrative and specific (as opposed to legislative and general) and final (as opposed to preliminary) (at 670), the person dismissed holds an office at pleasure or from which he may be dismissed only for cause (at 676), and the decision has a significant impact on the individual (at 677).[315]
9.