When closed doors make sense: Court dismisses challenge to university board’s procedure for in camera discussions
Included in Discovery: Atlantic Education & the Law – Issue 12
By Scott Campbell, Jennifer Taylor, Folu Adesanya
A long-standing dispute over governance practices at the Cape Breton University Board of Governors was recently resolved in the Board’s favour. Calvin Howley (the “Applicant”), a faculty representative on the Board, had been excluded from an in camera portion of a Board meeting on October 22, 2021. The Applicant sought judicial review of this decision.
In Howley v Cape Breton University Board of Governors, Justice Ann E. Smith dismissed the application for judicial review. Justice Smith found that the Board acted reasonably and fairly in following its established policy for in camera meetings, which excluded “internal members” — faculty, staff, and students — from discussions of certain personnel and labour issues.
This decision underscores the importance of having well-considered policies in place for in camera discussions. Such policies help to navigate the “structural conflicts” that may often arise on university boards given the diverse stakeholder groups involved.
Background Facts
The CBU Board of Governors was created by the Cape Breton University Act to manage the affairs of the University. Board membership is set out in the Act: it includes the CBU President; a senior administrator; 12 members appointed by the Minister of Education; four faculty representatives; four students; and two members appointed by the Cape Breton Development Corporation. Those members can then appoint up to 12 additional people.
While the Act includes some procedural requirements, the Board is generally empowered to regulate its own meetings and procedures. Of particular relevance to Howley was Bylaw 9 on meeting procedures, which provided that Board meetings would be generally open to the public, but certain topics (including personnel matters, labour negotiations, and legal advice) would be discussed in camera, and the content and minutes of in camera meetings would be kept confidential.
Board members must also abide by a Code of Ethics, requiring them to “carry out their functions with integrity and good faith in the best interests of the University…” and to avoid “situations in which there may be a real, apparent or potential conflict between their personal interest and their duties as Members…”[1]
Over time, the Board developed a practice by which “internal members” (faculty, staff, and students) would be asked to excuse themselves from certain discussions. The Applicant raised concerns about this practice in late 2020. In doing so, he was backed by the Association of Nova Scotia University Teachers and the Canadian Association of University Teachers.
The Board’s Ethics Committee then took up the issue, conducting “extensive research” on in camera sessions and engaging an external consultant for advice. From there, the Committee reported to the Board in February 2021, providing a cross-country survey of university governance policies.[2]
Ultimately, the Committee recommended that the Board revise its policy to specify that only the President and external Board members would be present for in camera discussions of “human resources, personnel and labour issues, which present a real conflict of interest for faculty/staff and students” (referred to as a “structural conflict”). The Committee also recommended that these presumptive in camera sessions be limited to “information and discussion”, with no motions at stake.[3] Should the need for a Board decision arise, the Board would then follow its more general process regarding conflicts of interest and recusal.
The Board adopted the Committee’s recommendations on March 5, 2021, by majority vote.
Over the next several months, the Applicant expressed concerns about the new policy, and at one point said he would not comply. In June 2021, a written warning was issued to the Applicant, advising that his “failure to abide by the Board’s procedure” for in camera discussions “would be considered a violation of the Code of Ethics.”[4]
Matters culminated on October 22, 2021, when the Board, and its Executive Committee, met in person. The Applicant again objected to the in camera process being followed. On November 25, 2021, he applied for judicial review. The hearing took place on September 12, 2022.
Legal Findings
There was an initial issue regarding what “decision” the Court was actually being asked to review. Because the proceeding was not commenced until November 25, 2021, the Applicant was out of time to seek judicial review of the Board’s March 2021 decision to implement the in camera policy. Instead, Justice Smith found that “the Board’s October 22, 2021 decision was to follow a procedure it had adopted at its March 5, 2021 meeting.”[5] The “true nature of the Board’s action,” Justice Smith noted, “was to follow its own procedure.”[6]
Having identified the “decision” at issue, Justice Smith applied the reasonableness standard of review, in accordance with Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v Vavilov. Justice Smith concluded that the Board “made an entirely reasonable decision” when internal members of the Board were excluded from the in camera discussion on October 22, 2021: “When it did so, the Board was following its duly voted upon and adopted procedure for such discussion sessions.”[7] Similarly, the Board did not violate the Cape Breton University Act, or its own Bylaws, in following a procedure that it was “expressly empowered” to adopt.[8]
Justice Smith also upheld the decision on procedural fairness grounds, applying the factors from Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration).
Justice Smith agreed that the Applicant, “as a Board Member, was owed a duty of fairness.” However, the Applicant had only “rudimentary procedural rights” in the context of the October 2021 meeting: namely, he “was entitled to be afforded the opportunity to voice his concerns.”
Justice Smith pointed out that the Applicant also had the “opportunity to express his concerns about the process” when it was debated at the March meeting — and to vote on the Ethics Committee’s recommendation. As Justice Smith noted, there was “no suggestion that the voting process was flawed or invalid in any way.”[9]
Key Takeaways
Although it was not the Court’s role to determine “best practices” for in camera meetings,[10] Howley is still a good reminder that university boards will benefit from detailed policies for holding in camera sessions.
In developing and reviewing these policies with an eye to effective governance, university boards should consider:
- the provisions of their governing statute, and their bylaws;
- comparable policies at other post-secondary institutions; and
- whether to have a board committee conduct a review and offer recommendations.
Clear policies on in camera discussions can help maximize the contributions of every board member, while minimizing the potential for conflicts.
This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact the authors.
Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.
[1] Howley at para 23.
[2] Ibid. at paras 66-68, 73.
[3] Ibid. at paras 29, 69 (see also para 70).
[4] Ibid.at para 119.
[5] Ibid.at para 104 (see also para 98).
[6] Ibid.at para 102.
[7] Ibid.at para 113.
[8] Ibid.at para 118 (see also para 146).
[9] Ibid.at para 142.
[10] Ibid.at para 116.
Archive
Brendan Sheridan Canada has continuously had border measures and pre-travel requirements related to COVID-19 in place since the beginning of the Pandemic. Due to recent data indicating that the latest wave of COVID-19 has passed…
Read MoreOur newest municipal webinar, in partnership with Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, featured St. John’s lawyers Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw as they discussed a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision that brought the issue of…
Read MoreWe are pleased to present the eighth installment of Beyond the Border, a publication for employers aiming to provide the latest information and analysis on new immigration programs and immigration-related issues. In this issue, insight…
Read MoreMark Tector and Will Wojcik As we reported back in December 2021, one of the changes brought about by the Ontario Working for Workers Act (“Act”) was to ban non-compete agreements, except in certain limited circumstances such as for some executive…
Read MoreGrant Machum, ICD.D and Emily Murray Two employer-friendly decisions from Alberta have set a precedent in favour of an employer’s right to rely on a termination clause in an employment contract, provided that the clause…
Read MoreRick Dunlop and Will Wojcik Nova Scotia’s COVID-19 Paid Sick Leave Program (“Program”) is now open for applications. Employers can now be reimbursed for employees’ time off work to comply with public health requirements, including…
Read MoreSean Kelly and Will Wojcik A recent decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta (“Tribunal”) dismissing a customer’s allegations of discrimination based on physical disability and religious belief against a Natural Food Store’s mandatory mask…
Read MoreClarence Bennett and Lara Greenough In ExxonMobil Business Support Centre Canada ULC v Birmingham, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal considered the equitable remedy of unjust enrichment in the context of an ordinary wrongful dismissal…
Read MoreBrian Johnston, QC and Katharine Mack COVID-19 vaccination policies have become more prevalent. Public sector employees have been mandated to get vaccinated in a number of jurisdictions, the federal government has mandated vaccinations in the…
Read More*Last updated: December 17, 2021 (originally published December 1, 2021) Mark Tector and Will Wojcik Bill 27, Working for Workers Act (“Act”), 2021, received Royal Assent on December 2, 2021, and is now in force in Ontario.…
Read More