UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Misleading government information : an analysis of the legal remedies available to affected citizens Ward, Ian Robert 1985

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1985_A6_4 W37.pdf [ 10.94MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0077673.json
JSON-LD: 1.0077673+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0077673.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0077673+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0077673+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0077673+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0077673 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0077673.txt
Citation
1.0077673.ris

Full Text

MISLEADING GOVERNMENT  INFORMATION:  AN ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL REMEDIES TO AFFECTED  AVAILABLE  CITIZENS  By IAN ROBERT WARD B.A.,  University  of Cambridge,  1979  LL.B.,  University  o f C a m b r i d g e , 1980  M.A.,  University  o f C a m b r i d g e , 1983  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT THE  REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LAWS  in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE  STUDIES  D e p a r t m e n t o f Law  We a c c e p t t h i s to  t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g  the r e q u i r e d  THE UNIVERSITY  standard  OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA  A u g u s t 1985 © Ian Robert  W a r d , 1985  OF  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of  requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the  the  University  o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make it  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  and  study.  I further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may  be granted by the head o f  department or by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .  my  It i s  understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain  s h a l l not be allowed without my  permission.  Department o f  t-^-w  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3  written  i  ABSTRACT  In  the  and powers enormous  twentieth  information  the  of  t o p i c s of  which i t  it  citizen  i s given  Separate  misleading  issue of that  others,  disown  The  an the  reliable:  proves  available  central  areas of  information  to  protect  misleading  purpose  of  this  to c i t i z e n s  misled  i s given  deprives it  to  the  investigation.  the  of  consideration i s given  the  to  for  the  or  r i s k of  able to  i n which  a benefit  s u b j e c t s him to  r e s p o n s i b l e i n damages  has p r o v i d e d  situations  citizen  First,  t h e c i t i z e n may be  which i t  the inflicts  criminal  possibility  the consequences  of of  being m i s l e a d i n g . importance  the proper  r o l e of  in this wide-ranging the c o u r t s .  This  c o m p l a i n t s about m i s l e a d i n g government  involve  on  Unfortunately,  it  it.  activities  information  i s powerless  t h e means w h e r e b y  and i n w h i c h  Secondly,  information  to  treatment  h o l d i n g government  Of  citizens.  remedies  principal  bound by  information  on him a l o s s , liability.  s u p p l i e r of  its  always completely  at  to  of  information.  h o l d government  its  legal  a n a l y s i s has two  consideration  him.  the  expansion  and g o v e r n m e n t  chooses l a t e r  analyse  by g o v e r n m e n t  to  i s not  from the c o n s e q u e n c e s ;  i s to  The  a major  concern to  provides  is inaccurate,  because government thesis  a dynamic  has made g o v e r n m e n t  range  sometimes  century,  c h a l l e n g e s to  government  decisions.  analysis  is  the  stems from the  information  fact  frequently  Thus t h e m a j o r i t y  of  ii  attempts  by c i t i z e n s  to  h o l d government  g e n e r a t e d by t h e m a k i n g by g o v e r n m e n t inconsistent with  that  information.  government  r e s p o n s i b l e i n damages  misleading  information  particular  government  commonly  It  the c o u r t s should r e f u s e  towards  represented  of  in society.  a s s i s t a n c e to  priority  i n v a l u e - l a d e n government  facilitate  an u n w a r r a n t e d  extension  a citizen is  where  of  providing a  this  that thesis  whose  directed that  decision  competing i n t e r e s t s  p r o v i s i o n of  case would enable the c o u r t s e f f e c t i v e l y embodied  hold  p r o v i s i o n of  throughout  information  decision,  The  to  an a l l e g a t i o n t h a t the  are  a decision  attempts  i s emphasized  the  i t s information  the consequences of  involve  a government  involves a determination values  Again,  for  c o m p l a i n t of m i s l e a d i n g government essentially  i t s e l f of  d e c i s i o n r e l a t i n g to  i n f o r m a t i o n was n e g l i g e n t . that  bound by  a remedy  to r e v i e w  and  i n such a  the c h o i c e s  d e c i s i o n s , and as s u c h w o u l d of  their  constitutional  role.  i ii  TABLE OF CONTENTS  PART I GOVERNMENT  INFORMATION Page  1.  Information  And U n c e r t a i n t y  2  2.  Explanation  Of Terms  3  3.  Government  Information:  The U n c e r t a i n t i e s A d d r e s s e d  5  4.  Government  Information:  The M o t i v a t i o n s F o r I t s P r o v i s i o n . . .  9  (a)  D u t i e s and Powers  9  (b)  Economic Theory o f I n f o r m a t i o n  11  (c)  Weaknesses o f t h e Economic Theory  15  (d)  The R o l e o f t h e C o u r t s :  20  Standards  5.  Government  Information:  The Means O f P r o v i s i o n  26  6.  Government  Information:  Characteristics  27  7.  Express,  And R e l i a b i l i t y  (a)  Information  (b)  Information Volunteered or Requested  29  (c)  Information  or Written  30  (d)  Assurances and U n d e r t a k i n g s  36  (e)  Fees  39  Oral  and Charges  S e l f - B i n d i n g Information  FOOTNOTES  Implied or Inferred  28  44 52  iv PART  II  HOLDING GOVERNMENT BOUND: MISLEADING GOVERNMENT INFORMATION AND DEPRIVATION OF BENEFIT OR I N F L I C T I O N OF LOSS Page A.  B.  ESTOPPEL  BY REPRESENTATION  1.  Introduction:  2.  Estoppel  A n d The Crown  3.  Estoppel  And S t a t u t o r y  64  The D o c t r i n e D e f i n e d  64 65  Powers And D u t i e s  68  (a)  The J u r i s d i c t i o n a l P r i n c i p l e  68  (b)  The D u t y / D i s c r e t i o n P r i n c i p l e  80  4.  T h e E l e m e n t s Of E s t o p p e l  86  5.  Estoppel  93  6.  Assessment  JUDICIAL  And Agency  97  REVIEW  102  1.  Introduction:  The P r o m i s e Of J u d i c i a l  2.  T h e D u t y To A c t F a i r l y :  3.  A b u s e Of D i s c r e t i o n : S u b s t a n t i v e F a i r n e s s , Considerations  4.  Review  Procedural Fairness  102 104  Relevant  And R e a s o n a b l e n e s s  Assessment  117 129  FOOTNOTES  131  PART  III  HOLDING GOVERNMENT BOUND: MISLEADING GOVERNMENT INFORMATION AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY Page 1.  Introduction...  143  2.  M i s t a k e Of  143  Fact  V Page 3.  M i s t a k e Of Law  143  4.  Estoppel  148  5.  J u s t i f i c a t i o n s For Refusal  Of A M i s t a k e Of Law D e f e n c e  151  (a)  Efficiency  151  (b)  Effectiveness  153  (c)  Legality  154  6.  M i t i g a t i o n Of S e n t e n c e  7.  A Step Forward:  8.  Assessment  156  "Officially  I n d u c e d E r r o r Of Law"  156 166  FOOTNOTES  169  PART IV HOLDING GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBLE IN DAMAGES FOR MISLEADING INFORMATION Page 1.  N e g l i g e n t M i s s t a t e m e n t And G o v e r n m e n t  2.  Information  P r o v i d e d To C i t i z e n s G e n e r a l l y  177 Or To  A Group T h e r e o f 3.  Statements  183  Of L a w , A s s u r a n c e s And I m p l i e d Or  Inferred Statements o f Law  190  (a)  Statements  190  (b)  Assurances  191  (c)  Implied o r I n f e r r e d Statements  196  4.  Competence And E x p e r t i s e  199  5.  S t a n d a r d Of C a r e  202  6.  D i s c l a i m e r Of R e s p o n s i b i l i t y  203  7.  Vicarious Liability  205  vi Page 8.  H e d l e y B y r n e And S t a n d a r d s  9.  Assessment  206 217  FOOTNOTES  219  BIBLIOGRAPHY  227  PART GOVERNMENT  I  INFORMATION  -  1.  Information The  lies  Uncertainty  focus  uncertainty,  exists.  of  for  this  thesis  information  Behind u n c e r t a i n t y ,  information of  And  2 -  choice.*  derives  its  is information. c a n be o f  in turn,  lies  s i g n i f i c a n c e from  "'Information'  i n most  if  value the  Behind o n l y where  power  of  a l l of  its  uncertainty  selection,  the e x i s t e n c e  not  information  of  for  alternatives,  connotations  2 seems t o  r e s t upon  the  Uncertainty wrong  selection.  liability  notion  selection  i s a problem,  This  which might  may r e s u l t otherwise  secure  some g a i n o r a d v a n t a g e  All  us -  of  of  for  power."  it  i n the  e n t a i l s the  i n c u r r i n g of  have been a v o i d e d ,  which might  individuals, corporations  of making  some l o s s  or  otherwise  risk  i n the  and i n s t i t u t i o n s -  are  or  failure  have been  a  to  obtained. to  some  3 degree  risk-averse.  uncertainty options with in  and t o  Our  adopt measures  are broadly  others  risk.  the  aversion  twofold.  risk  to to  First,  associated with  Risk-transfer  takes  primarily  in  the  context  of  formation  of  partnerships,  the  risk  l e a d s us t o  limit  its  we may  potential  seek  to  uncertainty.  form of  the purchase of  impact.  transfer This  insurance;  business ventures  distrust  to or  involves  a  share trade  r i s k - s h a r i n g occurs  and i s p r e s e n t  company  The  stock  and  in  the  the  4 provision the  of  credit.  uncertainty  acquisition  of  Secondly,  with which  the  risk  are  another presumed  the  citizens  institution, to  seek  to  reduce or 5  is associated,  eliminate  through  the  information.6  G o v e r n m e n t i s no l e s s than  we may  whose  lives  composed o f  be r i s k - a v e r s e . 7  l i k e l y t o be d i s t r u s t f u l it  seeks to  individuals,  This  explains  regulate. each of  of  uncertainty  It  is  whom may  the v o r a c i o u s  merely be  appetite  -  of  government f o r  maintain  information,  supplier.  society  between  thesis  i s with  uncertainties when  r e q u i r e d to  c o r r e c t - or acceptable -  government i s not o n l y major  3 -  a major  consumer of  such i n f o r m a t i o n  citizens. for  It  the  2.  Explanation  and  choices. it  i s also a  information  central  But  in  concern of reduce or  a d d r e s s e s the q u e s t i o n s  this  eliminate whether,  some r e a s o n i n c o r r e c t o r m i s l e a d i n g ,  g o v e r n m e n t may n o n e t h e l e s s be bound by for  The  of  p r o v i d e d by g o v e r n m e n t t o  proves  t o make  information;  interchange  g o v e r n m e n t and g o v e r n e d .  facing i t s  it  p o l i c y and programme  There i s a c o n s t a n t  information  enable  it,  o r made r e s p o n s i b l e i n  damages  consequences.  Of  The word  Terms "information"  has so f a r  been u s e d i n a v e r y  general  9 sense,  as i n d i c a t i n g the  continue  to  be u s e d i n t h a t  by  information  of  data,  signs  science,  information  context.  "antidote"  to  sense.  The  and k n o w l e d g e ,  a p p l i c a t i o n by  arranged  specific  collected, structure  purposes;  specific  i s of  some v a l u e  w h i c h may be c o v e r e d by t h e  in  for  in  provided  categories this  s i g n i f i e s c o l l e c t i o n s of  i n some o r d e r l y manner "information"  repeated  "information",  specific  future range  but  it  to  i s data analysed  c o m p r i s e s a body of  i n d i c a t i n g the wide  term  the  l i m i t e d value  individuals in  and " k n o w l e d g e "  s y s t e m a t i s e d and s t o r e d  only  "data"  represent observed or researched f a c t s ;  for  will  sophisticated definition  i s of  Under t h a t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ,  for  It  w h i c h b r e a k s t h e c o n c e p t down i n t o  and c h a r a c t e r s g e n e r a l l y  refined  uncertainty.  situations information  use.10 of has  This  phenomena no  or  - 4-  consequence be f u r t h e r  for  the  in this  t h e s i s and i t w i l l  not  employed. Also  between  d i s c u s s i o n undertaken  of  l i m i t e d value  "information"  nebulous,  i s the d i s t i n c t i o n sometimes  and " a d v i c e " .  and i n p r a c t i c e t h e  This  Moreover,  the  embrace  phenomena  c o v e r e d by b o t h  the  d i s t i n c t i o n i s at  two c o n c e p t s  another.**  following  drawn  inevitably  discussion is terms,  best  shade  into  intended  as b o t h  one  to  are concerned  with  12 the  r e d u c t i o n o r e l i m i n a t i o n of The w o r d  sense,  uncertainty.  "government"  has so f a r  as s i g n i f y i n g g o v e r n m e n t a l  institutions.  In  the  following  a l s o been u s e d i n a  as o p p o s e d  to  discussion i t  general  non-governmental  i s p r i n c i p a l l y intended  to  13 denote  the e x e c u t i v e .  structures, officials  That  e s t a b l i s h e d by  i s , broadly,  the  e l e c t e d by c i t i z e n s  constitution or appointed  all  formal  administrative  o r by p u b l i c l a w s ,  and  public ownership.  Canada,  f i n a n c e d by t a x a t i o n  or w i t h i n  this  federal,  t e r r i t o r i a l , regional  authorities;  Crown  bodies.  it  The  But  executive  provincial,  corporations  i s not  intended  authorities  r e f e r e n c e may be h e l p f u l judicial  of or  and a g e n t s ;  and a l l  In  and m u n i c i p a l  statutory  to  concentrate  e x c l u s i v e l y on  other  states will  be r e f e r r e d  i l l u m i n a t i n g , and l i b e r a l  d e c i s i o n s from o t h e r ,  by  by e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s ,  principally covers  headed  and p a r t i c u l a r l y  from  public Canada.  t o where  use w i l l  a  be made  of  Commonwealth,  jurisdictions. However, executive  is  legislature. is  to  the  subject It  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of  to  an i m p o r t a n t  has a l r e a d y  c o n s i d e r the  legal  been  remedies  t h e word  caveat  stated  relating  t h a t the  available  "government" w i t h  to  to  the  purpose  of  role this  c i t i z e n s provided  of  the the  thesis by  the  -  executive  5 -  with misleading information.  information  may i t s e l f  be t h e  But  r e s u l t of  the  provision  of  that  a l e g i s l a t i v e , rather  than  an  14 executive,  decision.  discussion  to government  must  Accordingly,  d e c i s i o n s as t o  be r e a d as e m b r a c i n g t h e  legislature  and  references  i n the  following  the p r o v i s i o n  decisions in that  of  information  regard of  both  government  from  executive.  Finally,  it  programmes.  "We j u d g e  multiplicity  of  i s i m p o s s i b l e to government  programmes)  divorce  by what i t  as w e l l  does ( d e l i v e r i n g  as by w h a t i t  i s (a  set  its a  of  15 organizations)." government  programmes  information available  3.  Consideration  enables  of  the  and g o v e r n m e n t  us t o t a k e  Government I n f o r m a t i o n ;  production  a first  t o a c i t i z e n m i s l e d by  relationship  such  step  and d i s s e m i n a t i o n  towards  defining  goods  The U n c e r t a i n t i e s  of  the j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r most of  and s e r v i c e s t o  s u c h programmes  present  century.  citizens  experience  w h i c h has o c c u r r e d t h r o u g h o u t government goods  entitled  made t r a n s f e r  payments  by 1984,  the  figure  -  Canada  that  benefit  i n the  the western  and s e r v i c e s s u p p l i e d t o  million;  of  remedies  Addressed and v a r i e t y  which l i e s  to  has s p i r a l l e d u p w a r d s The  the  of  information.  G o v e r n m e n t m a i n t a i n s a b e w i l d e r i n g number programmes,  between  is  government  from  delivery  them.  second h a l f  symptomatic  world. is,  i n the  In  payments  itself -  had r i s e n t o $ 4 1 , 6 9 7 . 6  The  of  of  1974,  of  a  the  other  totalling  number  the trend federal  than  for  $9,968.6  million  16 (estimated).  Some g o v e r n m e n t  programmes  are designed  of  specifically  -  to  reduce  or e l i m i n a t e u n c e r t a i n t i e s  citizens,  by  programmes  e n s u r i n g the p r o v i s i o n  may  i n any  event  Uncertainties may both  6 -  relate  to  natural  following  the whole  addressed or spectrum of  are associated with and a c t i v i t i e s ;  uncertainties,  or generated  first  u n c e r t a i n as t o policies law;1^  such m a t t e r s or  as t h e the  production  of  or  government  such u n c e r t a i n t i e s  and d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f  wholesalers  those  of  the  to  the namely  uncertainties  its policies,  uncertainties,  The  which  programmes being  those  c i t i z e n may  or a p p l i c a t i o n of of  services.  reduction  i s a major  The  purpose  information.  of  the or  government  "Farmers,  processors,  Canada]  legislation affecting  be  government  interpretation  and r e t a i l e r s must know w h a t [ A g r i c u l t u r e  m u s t be i n f o r m e d  and  government.  nature  state  of  two c a t e g o r i e s :  by g o v e r n m e n t ,  of  purpose  i s e a s i l y comprehended.  the a v a i l a b i l i t y of  elimination  Veterans  category  and p r o g r a m m e s ;  or  into  information  and e x p e r i e n c e ,  the  and " g o v e r n m e n t - u n c o n t r o l l e d "  All  by g o v e r n m e n t  for  being  individual  uncertainties.  human a f f a i r s But  or  information.  generate  c a n be d i v i d e d  which e x i s t or a r i s e independently The  them o f  generated  phenomena.  they  "government-controlled"  to  themselves  and u n n a t u r a l  discussion,  facing corporate  i s up  their  to.  benefits. 18  All  c i t i z e n s must know how c h a n g e s  T h u s Revenue public  Canada T a x a t i o n  by means w h i c h  taxation  offices  i n tax  provides  general  i n c l u d e an i n q u i r y  and t h r o u g h  the  policy  affect  tax  information  service located  p u b l i c a t i o n of  them."  in  to  the  district  Interpretation  Bulletins  19 and I n f o r m a t i o n  Circulars.  the Department of  Industry,  Again,  the Small  T r a d e and Commerce  Business Centre and R e g i o n a l  of  Economic  - 7-  Expansion services  offers  r e l a t i n g to  Program of of  businesses, publishes  annually  to  all  of weather  Physics of  of  uncertainty.  geomagnetic  Within  a range of  Energy,  activity;  the  for  and t h e A n i m a l  fall  as i t c o m p r e h e n d s fall  status  to  the  p u b l i c to  the  users;  and t h e  o f women  Feed B o a r d of  Canada p u b l i s h e s r e p o r t s  regarding  feed  grain market;  and d i s s e m i n a t e s  c o u l d be m u l t i p l i e d .  the  the  Earth forecasts Agriculture  alcohol  and t o b a c c o a b u s e .  the  human  Thus t h e  Women's  regarding the  equal  Livestock  information  and t h e H e a l t h P r o m o t i o n D i r e c t o r a t e  and W e l f a r e C a n a d a a d m i n i s t e r s h e a l t h e d u c a t i o n drug,  of  Also within  the myriad  i n the w o r k f o r c e ;  wholly  sophisticated  D i v i s i o n of  public information  opportunities  to  unable  s e r v i c e s , from  l i v e s t o c k owners. to  all  uncertainties  and e x p e r i e n c e s u n c o n t r o l l e d by g o v e r n m e n t .  inter alia  Centre  Environment Service  Pathology  to  and S e r v i c e s . "  specialised  uncertainties relating  Bureau of L a b o u r Canada o f f e r s  relation  bank,  M i n e s and R e s o u r c e s Canada p r o v i d e s  second c a t e g o r y  the  a s a means  and t h e  i s at present  general  d i a g n o s t i c s e r v i c e s to  Health  it  information  Canada p r o v i d e s  activities  Programs  and  Exploitation  public information  Thus t h e A t m o s p h e r i c  to  the T e l i d o n  public generally;  c l i m a t i c information  Branch of  the  i s more a m o r p h o u s ,  forecasts  programmes  the P u b l i c uses T e l i d o n  phenomena w h i c h m a n k i n d  E n v i r o n m e n t Canada o f f e r s  application  government  Further,  to F e d e r a l  second c a t e g o r y  to c o n t r o l .  provision  to  from C a n t e l ,  an " I n d e x  natural  federal  businesses.  i n s t i t u t i o n s and t h e  p o s s i b l e causes of  relating  about  for Service  information  The  or at  small  the Centre  providing  other  information  programmes The  in  examples  of  - 8-  The  importance  of  the  and g o v e r n m e n t - u n c o n t r o l l e d upon t h e p o s i t i o n o f citizen  of  to e x p l o r e  lies  from  it  e i t h e r or both  bound by i t s  to  government  the government eminently  the to  sufficient  may e f f e c t  His  object  to  being in  him as i f  uncertainties  is  the  to  having  hold  the  itself.  the c i t i z e n  that  that  for  In  This  from  the  government  Accordingly,  he i s e l i g i b l e  by t h e  him as i f  that  the p o s i t i o n w i t h different.  decide that  be  being  for a certain grant, i n c u r r i n g any  provided  that  a c i t i z e n who i s  wrongly or  liability  that to  he tax,  compelling  a d v i c e was c o r r e c t .  r e s p e c t to  The  of  a  associated with  i t would  p o s s i b i l i t y of  seems  i n response to  i l l effects to  with  requiring  approach  i s an u n c e r t a i n t y such a c a s e ,  effectively  adverse  f a c t m i s l e a d i n g , by  i n f o r m a t i o n was p r o v i d e d  be a t t r a c t e d  very  proceedings  i t were c o r r e c t .  uncertainty,  a c t towards  However,  of  information  i s to a v o i d t h e  a business transaction without  may u n d e r s t a n d a b l y government  by l e g a l  its  and t h a t  him i n c o n s i s t e n t l y  m u s t be a d h e r e d t o .  a d v i s e d by g o v e r n m e n t  information,  government-uncontrolled  citizen will  be  namely,  r e l a t i o n to  with misleading information information  its  he may  from a c t i n g i n  treat  protect  law,  Where a  i s concerned  by g o v e r n m e n t  to  the  throws  the c i t i z e n  f e a s i b l e where  or generated  information.  a s s i s t a n c e of  the consequences of  information  government-controlled  l i g h t which i t  information,  e a r l i e r stated p o s i t i o n .  consequences of  government-controlled  two b r o a d p o s s i b i l i t i e s :  Where he a t t e m p t s  government prevent  of  bound by  damages f o r  proved m i s l e a d i n g .  i n the  a c i t i z e n m i s l e d by g o v e r n m e n t  h o l d i n g the government  recovering  its  uncertainty  who has been so m i s l e d s e e k s t h e  expected that  d i s t i n c t i o n between  g e n e r a l l y have  no  -  interest  in holding  response  to  was c o r r e c t  the  9 -  g o v e r n m e n t bound  such u n c e r t a i n t i e s ,  for  the  be u n a b l e  government w i l l  by  by  information  treating to  provided  him as i f  relieve  the  him o f  in  information  the  adverse  20 consequences influence  over  information if  of  or  it  events to  bound  by  ensues, the  will  in  fact  there  to  treat  be l i m i t e d  that  its  to  it  The  taking  information  Similarly, contain  avails  the  if  government's  steps  to  is correct  predicts  implement  g o v e r m e n t may be  citizen  tar,  nothing  when to  the c o r r e c t  require  Thus  and a  a government h e a l t h warning  n amount o f  the  in future.  f i n e weather  i s no s e n s e i n w h i c h t h e  forecast.  n + 1,  misleading.  Environment Service  t h a t brand X c i g a r e t t e s is  in fact  ensure  the Atmospheric  hurricane  being  the  held states amount  government  21 him as i f The  its  information  d i s t i n c t i o n between  government-uncontrolled step  towards  defining  was  government-controlled  uncertainty the  important limit  their  availability, behind  But  the  it  i l l u m i n a t e s only those  political  are best  government p r o v i s i o n  us t o  legal  of  of  remedies  and  of  availability  and w h i c h  Government Information:  (a)  take  to a  citizen  the  remedies.  practical More  considerations  approached  one  which  by a n a l y s i n g  the  information.  The M o t i v a t i o n s F o r I t s P r o v i s i o n  D u t i e s and Powers In  a  the  and more c o m p l i c a t e d a r e  motivations  4.  affecting  accordingly enables  availability  m i s l e d by g o v e r n m e n t i n f o r m a t i o n . considerations  correct.  statutory  some c a s e s , duty  information  i m p o s e d on t h e  i s provided  executive  by  the  to  citizens  legislature.  pursuant Thus  to  one  - 10 -  of  the  functions  Corporate  of  Affairs  the B r i t i s h  it  to  Columbia M i n i s t r y  "disseminate information  of  Consumer  and e d u c a t e  and consumers"  22 with  r e s p e c t to  Inspector  of  consumer a f f a i r s m a t t e r s .  Mines of  Petroleum Resources m i n e and a f t e r  the B r i t i s h  i s under  examination  their workings,  to r e p o r t  of to  Again,  the  Columbia M i n i s t r y  a duty,  of  Chief Energy,  on a p p l i c a t i o n by t h e  plans of  the  owner  two m i n e s and i f  the a p p l i c a n t whether  the  Mines of  and a  necessary  applicant's 23  t e r r i t o r y i s o r i s n o t b e i n g e n c r o a c h e d upon by an a d j o i n i n g F u r t h e r , one o f t h e d u t i e s o f t h e E c o n o m i c C o u n c i l o f Canada  mine. i s to  foster  24 and p r o m o t e Council  the  d i s s e m i n a t i o n of  technical  information  i s a l s o o b l i g e d t o p u b l i s h an a n n u a l  review  ;  and  the  of medium-  and  25 long-term  economic  prospects  In  cases,  other  in  the e x e r c i s e of  of  a statutory to  safety  health  problems.  the  executive  provides  an e x p r e s s  statutory  power,  duty.  empowered  and  Accordingly,  "prepare  the  rather  federal  and d i s s e m i n a t e d a t a o r  information than  M i n i s t e r of information  to  in  citizens performance  Labour  is  bearing  upon  26 or  of  employees."  Again,  the B r i t i s h  Columbia  27 Heritage Trust i s empowered t o " c o n d u c t and a r r a n g e e x h i b i t s o r a c t i v i t i e s to i n f o r m . . . t h e i n t e r e s t of the p u b l i c i n p r o p e r t y of h e r i t a g e 28 significance" within  the  undertake...publication encouraging  province,  and t o  "assist  concerning i t s objects"  of  in  or  supporting,  and f a c i l i t a t i n g t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n , m a i n t e n a n c e  and  29 restoration  of  heritage  Perhaps  more  government are founded  property  i n the  frequently,  the  on no e x p r e s s  province. informational  statutory  power.  activities The  power  of is  then  -  implied,  under  an e x p r e s s  the  power  necessarily  p r i n c i p l e that  or duty  incidental  to  11  the  impliedly the  -  grant  or  i m p o s i t i o n by s t a t u t e  i n c l u d e s t h e power  execution  of  the  of  express  doing  power  all  of  acts  or  duty. What a r e acts  to ensure the  decides  in  its  determination produced?  the m o t i v a t i n g p r o v i s i o n of  of  theory  the  quantity  of  information,  explanation  (b)  Theory of  Information susceptible  of  the  these  presence of  brought  about  that  to  the  citizens,  What f a c t o r s of  the  issues  or the  govern  i s provided  informational  legislature  information  which holds out  the  role  the to  by  be  the  promise of of  executive  a  government.  Information  i s a commodity,  economic a n a l y s i s .  ubiquitous it  of  it?  and q u a l i t y  approaching  comprehensive  Economic  information  d i s c r e t i o n to p r o v i d e  A means o f  econmomic  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s where  and a c c o r d i n g l y a  "The  uncertainty information  outstanding  permeating i s one o f  fact  every  the  phenomenon is that  relation  principal  of  the life  has  commodities  31 that  the  other bought  economic o r g a n i s a t i o n  goods o r  services available  and s o l d ;  producer;  i s engaged  it  usually  and i t s p r o d u c t i o n  from o t h e r ,  "ordinary"  differences  are of  i n the m a r k e t ,  has a u s e f u l n e s s consumes  commodities  degree  in supplying."  rather  information persons  resources.  in five  than  to  of  But  important  kind,  Like  but  may  other  follows:  in information  peculiarly difficult.  than  information respects.  they  T h e y a r e as  its differs  The  contribute  32 make t r a d e  be  to  - 12 -  (i)  Division  Information be h a r d t o m e a s u r e ,  (ii)  does n o t  always  and t h e r e f o r e  come i n w e l l - d e f i n e d  to  units.  It  may  price.  Exclusion  "A v i a b l e  b u s i n e s s must  r e s t r a i n the  flow  of  benefits  from  its  33 products  f r o m r e a c h i n g p e o p l e who do n o t  information from  is difficult  non-paying  may be h a r d t o  (i i i)  b e n e f i c i a r i e s , or  having  parted with that  them."  and t h e r e f o r e  "free-riders."  However,  d i f f i c u l t to Property  withhold  rights  in  it  Alienation goods may be d e s c r i b e d t o o r  i n some d e t a i l  difficulty  for  maintain.  Ordinary purchasers  to c o n t r o l ,  pay  the  "to  prior  to  essence of  the  extent  sale without their  value.  t h a t one has  i n s p e c t e d by the  prospective  prospective  Information  information  seller  presents  about  the  the  34 product,  one a l r e a d y  information  may  (iv)  changes  product  itself."  a c c o r d i n g l y be unaware  A buyer  o f w h a t he i s  of  purchasing.  Depletion  Ordinary so i n f o r m a t i o n .  has t h e  goods  are  Information  in c i r c u m s t a n c e s , but  depleted or may it  lose i t s will  u s e d up by c o n s u m p t i o n , value  endure  but  o r become o b s o l e t e  indefinitely.  not  due  to  -  Ordinary  of  of  another  persons at  scarce;  goods c a n u s u a l l y have  which e n t a i l s that  creation  the  to  unit.  But  cost,  consumer r e q u i r e s  thereby  or the c o s t of  rendering the  at  the number  commodity  serving another  i n h e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s or a t t r i b u t e s  "imperfections"  market  i m p e r f e c t i o n c a n be u n d e r s t o o d  "neoclassical  model"  .  user,  is  i n the  of  information  market.  only  The  of  information  c o n c e p t of  by r e f e r e n c e  to  a  the  e c o n o m i c a n a l y s i s , f r o m w h i c h an i m p e r f e c t  market  35 said to  deviate.  This  certain  assumptions,  optimal  welfare  individual;  whereby  for  of  of  Welfare  society's welfare  superior"  situation the  buyers,  to  the  neoclassical  for  in this  of  model  if  the  goods  atom o f  under  result  i s that  Italian  another  off.  and " P a r e t o  constitutes  Pareto, an is  "The  h a v i n g many s e l l e r s  and s e r v i c e s as w e l l  reduced is  is accordingly central  u n d e r c e r t a i n a s s u m p t i o n s an i.e.  welfare  new s i t u a t i o n  optimum"  is possible.  the  as p r o d u c t i v e  the  measured  economist  The  in  this analysis is  no i n d i v i d u a l ' s w e l f a r e  improvement  competitive markets,  all  that,  sense i s n o r m a l l y  i s made b e t t e r  o l d one;  i n w h i c h no P a r e t o  consisting  The  f r o m one s i t u a t i o n t o  and a t l e a s t one i n d i v i d u a l "Pareto  demonstrate  s o c i e t y as a w h o l e i s e q u a t e d w i t h  t h e c r i t e r i o n named a f t e r  a movement  improvement  i s used to  s o c i e t y as a w h o l e .  i t s members. to  model  r e l i a n c e on c o m p e t i t i v e m a r k e t s w i l l  the w e l f a r e  each of  according  of  possessor  i n f o r m a t i o n may be p o s s e s s e d by any  create  of  one owner o r  low.  These  is  only  serve another  same t i m e w i t h o u t  and m a r g i n a l  accordingly  -  Appropriation  (v)  a time,  13  the  point  economy  and many  factors  would  - 14 -  b r i n g about  a Pareto  optimum and be i n e q u i l i b r i u m a t t h a t  When t h i s  o c c u r s p r i c e s are equal  producing  the l a s t u n i t of If  the  particularly suppliers  the commodity  assumptions  that  there  "imperfection"  i n the market.  marginal  and so t h e y  This  tends  their  "too  over-priced  goods", any  of  do n o t  f r o m whose of  assumptions  so t h a t  assumption  number  the  rests  exchange  event,  r e f l e c t the  cost  are not  met,  of  from  commodities the m o d e l ,  of  p r i c e s are not s c a r c i t y of  to other  commodities  an  equal  to  the  under-priced  items,  or  too  between  or  commodity.  r e s o u r c e s , which c o n s t i t u t e s  relative  used of  the  i s owned,  This  a free  that  i s the  economic  factors,  given  l i t t l e of  the  ones.  One  use.  much,  scarcity, [is]  resource  In  that  concerned.  i s a divergence  to a m i s a l l o c a t i o n of  inefficiency:  cost,  upon w h i c h t h e model  which p o s t u l a t e s  and p u r c h a s e r s ,  cost,  to marginal  point."  the  n e o c l a s s i c a l model  one p e r s o n c a n e x c l u d e  all  at  i s that  others  i s n o t met by w h a t a r e commonly  u s e nobody  persons  of  from  every its  called "public  c a n be e x c l u d e d and w h i c h may be u s e d  once w i t h o u t  their  utility  by  being  38 diminished.  It  commodity  the  from  has a l r e a d y  been p o i n t e d  out  that  use o f w h i c h i t may be d i f f i c u l t  information to e x c l u d e  is a others  and  39 w h i c h may be p o s s e s s e d by any Accordingly, good,  information  persons  may p o s s e s s t h e  and as a r e s u l t one m i g h t  information  expect  at the  same  time.  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a p u b l i c  imperfections  to  occur i n  the  market.  The that,  number o f  r e s u l t of  at Pareto  optimum,  the  p e c u l i a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  where  p r i c e i s equal  p u b l i c goods  to marginal  cost,  the  is use  - 15 -  of  s u c h g o o d s w o u l d be f r e e .  their of  costs;  charge,  and i f  the  levied,  than marginal  cost,  "free-riding"  -  paying The  information,  as a p u b l i c g o o d ,  r e s u l t w o u l d be u n d e r p r o d u c t i o n .  any c h a r g e w e r e  without  But p r o d u c e r s must c h a r g e i n o r d e r  remedy  the  to  retain  the  were a v a i l a b l e  On t h e o t h e r  benefit  of  if  greater  u n d e r u t i l i s a t i o n and  full  free  hand,  i n f o r m a t i o n w o u l d be to  cover  to  information  share. for market  government  intervention.  remove  the  imperfection,  Pareto  optimum.  In  p r i c e of  and t h i s w o u l d t e n d  attempts one's  the  to  To  imperfections  the  extent  that  i s seen to government  t h e economy a s a w h o l e w i l l  r e l a t i o n to p u b l i c goods,  lie  in  intervenes  to  move c l o s e r t o  government  intervention  may  40 take  a variety  purposes of itself  at  of  forms,  the most i m p o r t a n t  t h i s d i s c u s s i o n i s the  the expense of  the  supply  of  of which f o r  the  t h e good by t h e  government  taxpayer.  (c) Weaknesses o f the Economic Theory As a t h e o r e t i c a l information, First,  it  the  private  uncertainties wit  This  model  information  i s apparent  s e c t o r are p r o f i t a b l y  accountants,  with  neoclassical  i s c l e a r that  a p u b l i c good.  approach  among o t h e r s , facing their  to  r e a l i t i e s of  is less does not  from  engaged  thrive  the  the  always that  fall  t o be t r e a t e d  large parts  provision.  of  The  for  satisfactory.  Lawyers  on s u p p l y i n g t h e a n t i d o t e  fellow citizens.  and e r u d i t i o n by t h e work  than e n t i r e l y  fact  in i t s  the market  p o i n t was  C o a s e on t h e B r i t i s h  of  the  and  to demonstrated lighthouse  as  -  system,  pertinent  16  because the  -  essential  purpose  of  a  lighthouse 42  lies  in the  production  phenomenon,  the  the c l a s s i c  example  and d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f  lighthouse of  information.  has been s u b j e c t e d  a p u b l i c good,  As  to overuse  a  by e c o n o m i s t s  w h i c h m u s t be p r o v i d e d  as  by  43 government i n t e r v e n t i o n . private  s e c t o r would  ships benefitting to  restrict its  The  find  from  it  r e a s o n was s a i d  i m p o s s i b l e to  the e x i s t e n c e  benefit  to  s h i p s whose  l i g h t h o u s e s w o u l d be u n p r o f i t a b l e of  the  early  history  of  to  ships  sector,  entering  payment b e i n g and l e a v i n g  a lighthouse, owners  was l i m i t e d t o p e r m i t t i n g  the  d i d pay,  so  that his  to  r o l e of  c o n s t r u c t i o n of  light  studies  demonstrate  s y s t e m was d e v e l o p e d form of  by  the  dues r a i s e d on  government -  t h e Crown  l i g h t h o u s e s and t h e  dues.  When  i n 1836  profits  and i n t h e  Trinity  House w o u l d  continues  to  Britain  both  l i g h t h o u s e s were  hope t h a t t h e  l e a d to a l o w e r i n g of  not  from g e n e r a l  House,  lighthouses  dues. not  by  a unified It  system  did not.  by g o v e r n m e n t ;  The  large under  system  and t o  be  taxation.  c o n c l u s i o n r e a c h e d by C o a s e built  vested  e s t a b l i s h m e n t of  be managed by T r i n i t y  f i n a n c e d by d u e s , The  English  -  levying  44 statute 45 in T r i n i t y House, a p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n with p u b l i c d u t i e s , it was b e c a u s e l i g h t h o u s e o w n e r s w e r e t h o u g h t t o be m a k i n g e x c e s s i v e l y of  of  b e i n g no way  But  e n a b l e d Coase  secured i n the The  the  there  b u i l d and m a i n t a i n .  lighthouse  port.  be t h a t  s e c u r e payment f r o m o w n e r s  B r i t i s h lighthouses  t h a t a s u c c e s s f u l and p r o f i t a b l e private  of  to  t h a t the  private  sector  and r a n a s y s t e m o f  charges  for  in  their  use  46 commensurate does n o t  with  always  the b e n e f i t  possess the  received  attributes  indicates that of  a public  good.  information It  follows  that  -  its  optimal  production  17  -  and d i s s e m i n a t i o n  are not  necessarily  attainable  47 only  through  government  But theoretical  the  n e o c l a s s i c a l model  approach  consequences  for  intervention.  the  to  the  legal  government i n f o r m a t i o n . limitation that  of  of  the  remedying  economic  information remedies  This  purpose market  contains  of  a s e c o n d d e f i c i e n c y as  market,  available  deficiency  w h i c h has  to  follows  imperfections  i n the  important  citizens  misled  from  model's  the  g o v e r n m e n t as a s u p p l i e r  of  interests  a  by  commodities of  to  achieving  efficiency. Many g o v e r n m e n t a c t i v i t i e s c a n i n d e e d be a n a l y s e d  this model.  With  respect  to  public  goods,  examples  usually  according cited  to  range  48 n a t i o n a l defence through the snowploughing of c i t y 49 50 streets t o t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f r o a d s and b r i d g e s . These from  are a l l to  the  and t h e  public  goods,  the  private  sector  to  supply  snowploughing  of  city  non-paying  levy  the  value  marginal  charges  to  In  streets,  him o f  c o s t would  sufficient  It  circumstances  may  information  and g o v e r n m e n t p r o v i s i o n a similar analysis. good c o n c e r n e d  In  of  the  be t o o  to cover  government i n t e r v e n t i o n .  the  them.  b e n e f i c i a r i e s and t h e r e f o r e  beneficiary projects,  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  its  the  there  In  low to  possess the  result  of  the  The out  disincentive  national to  defence  exclude  c o l l e c t i n g from case of  enable  costs.  information  case of  no way o f  good.  a c t as a  i s no way  has been p o i n t e d  such c a s e s ,  i s the  which  the  only  attributes  construction  private answer  that of  in  any  sector  is  certain  a public  good,  may a c c o r d i n g l y be s u s c e p t i b l e  the  d e c i s i o n of  its  identification  government to of  to  a  market  of  supply  -  failure,  which  the w e l f a r e  of  superior  the  to  But of  a s p e c t s of  the  of  the  i s b a s e d upon  society  as a w h o l e ,  preexisting  of  that  governmental  role.  the  i s to  optimal  society;  achieve  the  what w i l l  achieving a situation  orthodox it  enhance  Pareto  n e o c l a s s i c a l a n a l y s i s of  g l o s s e s over This  i s the  to  it  question  does  not  considerations,  result  the  Orthodox  and a d o p t s  the  given  a l l o c a t i o n of  of w e a l t h .  t h e more  defines  in relation  optimum  distribution  distributional  by  assessment of  n e o c l a s s i c a l model  a commodity  resources within object  with  government i s  The  its  one.  difficulty  analysis.  production  -  in turn  the  activities  18  of  the  fundamental the  optimum  narrow level  distribution  focus of  of  that d i s t r i b u t i o n .  The  distributed wealth,  not  n e o c l a s s i c i s m eschews  a definition  of  welfare  which  51 leaves is  them " t o  the  that version  of  preacher  politician."  n e o c l a s s i c i s m which attempts  t h e model  by b r o a d e n i n g  objective  which c o n t r i b u t e s  satisfies  the wishes  t h o s e whose  and t h e  or  preferences  the concept to  welfare  to  -  broaden  so as t o  society's welfare  d e s i r e s of count  of  Less  and w h i c h  the  scope  include  i n the  some c i t i z e n s -  orthodox of  "any  sense t h a t  it  o r more g e n e r a l l y ,  requires  d e c i s i o n s on  of  the  52 allocation brings  is that  there  efficient to  play  scarce resources. 53  This,  i t s own d i f f i c u l t i e s .  purposes that  of  exist use o f  both  The  orthodox  other  and u n o r t h o d o x  taken  into  accounnt  by " t h e  for  present  neoclassicists recognise  Whether  analysis,  unorthodoxies,  point  than merely  resources.  i n n e o c l a s s i c a l economic  are undeniably  important  considerations  distributed  l i k e most  the or  economically  not  they have a  distributional  part  considerations  p o l i t i c i a n " ; that  is,  they  -  play  a part  w h i c h have  i n government l i t t l e to  19  -  decision-making.  do w i t h  The  r e s u l t may be d e c i s i o n s  economic e f f i c i e n c y ,  or which i n v o l v e  the  54 control  or r e s t r i c t i o n of market  decisions  i s an e n t i r e l y  [government's] affect  the  proper  forces. function  p u r p o s e m u s t be i n p a r t  community  reflect  The m a k i n g of  such  government.  to ensure  the...values  of  that  "Its d e c i s i o n s which  and d e s i r e s w i t h i n  that 55  community...The The  forces  represented  and t h e  Of  of  course,  determine matter,  -  not  Conflicts will government  to choose between  which s h a l l  be r e f l e c t e d  interests,  government  involve  all citizens within  and i n w h a t p r o p o r t i o n s .  particular  d e c i s i o n s of  laden."  particular  the o v e r r i d i n g  economic e f f i c i e n c y  be n e c e s s a r y f o r  procrastination  its  are value  in order  values of  to  and  market  achieve  a  resources.  same v a l u e - s t r u c t u r e .  sometimes  in  government  i n s o c i e t y may  d i s r e g a r d of  redistribution  of  ...any  r e c o g n i t i o n by g o v e r n m e n t  interests  the  d e c i s i o n s of  -  a given  inevitably  perhaps  community occur.  after  This  to  to  d e c i s i o n on a p a r t i c u l a r  may n e c e s s i t a t e t h e  "reflect  will  and i n t e r e s t s ,  sacrifice  a f a c t w h i c h i s masked by t h o s e who v i e w  as b e i n g a l w a y s  share  some  c o n f l i c t i n g values i n the  It  will  the c o n g l o m e r a t i o n  of  the  of  role  societal  56 values"  and " c o m p r o m i s e  and h a r m o n i s e  Compromise  and harmony  Reasonable  c i t i z e n s may a d o p t  diametrically  opposed.  the Environment  to  will  attitudes  winter  greeted with  d i s m a y by l o c a l  which  e l k may  hungry  interests."  s o m e t i m e s be i m p o s s i b l e o f  A d e c i s i o n of  provide  competing  on p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e s w h i c h  the B r i t i s h Columbia M i n i s t r y  fodder  farmers,  attainment.  for  fearful  i n f l i c t on them when t h e  elk of  are of  i n a c e r t a i n a r e a may c r o p and p r o p e r t y  programme  is  be  damage  discontinued,  - 20 -  b u t w e l c o m e d by t h o s e who l i v e f u r t h e r  away and who v a l u e t h e  continued  57 existence  of  healthy  elk  herds.  Again,  a municipal  d e c i s i o n to  c o n s t r u c t a domed s p o r t s - s t a d i u m may r e c e i v e a p p r o b a t i o n sports-loving  s e c t i o n of  the community,  b u t be r o u n d l y  from  the  condemned by  those  58 whose i n t e r e s t s l i e i n o t h e r the  r e c o g n i t i o n and p r o m o t i o n  community.  directions. of  values  Such d e c i s i o n s not  They a r e n o t made by r e f e r e n c e  standard.  Governments  of  different  represent  s h a r e d by a l l m e m b e r s to  an a g r e e d o r  political  complexions  undoubtedly  make d i f f e r e n t  d e c i s i o n s , r e f l e c t i n g other  proportions  and so r e d i s t r i b u t i n g i n o t h e r ways  the  of  the  objective would  values  in  other  resources  of  society. Distributional government other  decisions.  quantity, with  r e l a t i n g to  than  and t o whom,  and e x t e n t  the  The  a r e d i s t r i b u t i o n of  to p r o v i d e ,  in  Role of  the Courts;  function  has i m p o r t a n t  of  its  what  resources.  on t h e  results  upon t h e  Decisions  payments  content  as t h e maker o f  implications for  the  r o l e of  to  of o r on  the of  nature the  Standards  government  of  i s g e n e r a l l y concerned  society's wealth,  r e d i s t r i b u t i o n depending  are i n  themselves.  The decisions  whether  in decisions  as they  r e s e a r c h or the a v a i l a b i l i t y of w e l f a r e involve  decisions  government  the e f f i c i e n t a l l o c a t i o n of  other matter, of  information  d e t e r m i n i n g what i n f o r m a t i o n  and d i s s e m i n a t e i n f o r m a t i o n ,  archaeological  (d)  the p r o v i s i o n of  by w h a t m e a n s ,  f a r more  produce  In  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a r e as a p p a r e n t  value-laden the c o u r t s  when  any  - 21 -  faced with  attempts  responsible decisionas  i n damages to  the  value-structure, for  the  courts  at  the  is  reflected  lack  hold  misleading  provision  to  of  is  "good"  "bad",  t h a t of  to  the  government.  law,  in society.  at  of  the  The  the  not  to  next  i s not  for  question  has been  to  d e c i s i o n i n which  the  rule  the  argue  whether,  from  for  the  process,  the  courts  and  is  but  to lawful  interests  dissatisfied citizen  and  ultimately  in  lies  the  t h a t government d e c i s i o n s review  by  the c o u r t s  considerations. citizen  by Makuch in  immunity  i n the  applied  particular  in  whenever they  Rather,  immunity  is essentially  in relation  negligence.6*  ought  to  are should  asking  underpinning. the  Makuch  review  argues  This  of  that  government the  s u c h c a s e s s h o u l d be t h e  case,  the v a l u e s  of  the  will  are being  challenged.  He d e m o n s t r a t e s  crucial  relevant  be no s u c h c h a l l e n g e w h e r e e v a l u a t i v e  national  or  provincial  codes or  standards,  that  criteria exist, by  reference  be  the  62 decision-maker  it  courts  difficult  values  decision's distributional  actions of  of  "second guess"  recourse  c a s e s where the  analysed  through  role  not  election.  be immune  those  The  competing  democratic  by d i s t r i b u t i o n a l  i s s u e of  the  is  determining  another  underpinned  of  that  It  by  substitute  to  focus  that value-structure,  to  for  or  necessarily  decisions  particular  t h e m a n d a t e and t h e c o m p e t e n c e  This  issue  a  The  the machinery  to  may r e f l e c t  "wrong".60  ballot-box  or  A government  or  represented  courts  by  "right"  obedience  reserved  g o v e r n m e n t bound  information.  a dissatisfied citizen  c h o i c e s made by g o v e r n m e n t b e t w e e n  in  the  information  p a s s j u d g m e n t upon  of  value-structure enforce  for  to  and as s u c h may be p o l i t i c a l l y c o n t r o v e r s i a l .  instance  both  by c i t i z e n s  there  such  to which  as the  - 22 -  d e c i s i o n may be s c r u t i n i s e d . either  a g r e e d o r commonly  whether, The  i n the  circumstances,  assessing  its  quality.  standards  exist,  decision  the  will  in nature,  being challenged  but  a l s o argues  objective  the  particular  rarely  that  of  enables  value-laden,  Makuch  review  existence  accepted,  decision i s admittedly  "polycentric"  The  courts  to  evaluate  d e c i s i o n was  there that,  is multi-faceted. relates  "reasonable".  a r e means even  be a p p r o p r i a t e  i s one w h i c h  standards,  if  of  external  where  "To  available  the  decision  the e x t e n t  that  t o many d i f f e r e n t  is the  factors 63  the  courts  s h o u l d be r e l u c t a n t  to  a l l o w an a c t i o n  in  negligence."  64 He q u o t e s t h e s p i d e r 1 s - w e b a n a l o g y u s e d by F u l l e r : h e r e , and a c o m p l e x p a t t e r n o f a d j u s t m e n t r u n s t h r o u g h Pull  another  strand  from  a different  If  review  angle,  Pull a strand the whole web.  and a n o t h e r  complex  pattern  65 results."  the  n e g l i g e n c e would decisions,  amount t o  of  a g o v e r n m e n t d e c i s i o n by a f i n d i n g  p u l l i n g one  so as s u b s t a n t i a l l y  decision  i s l i k e l y to  review.  Makuch c o n c l u d e s  are p r e s e n t  and t o  to  affect  be one w h i c h  the  that  extent  strand of  it  is  other  a web o f  strands  inappropriate  "To  the  extent  that  the  d e c i s i o n does  of for  interrelated the web, the  that evaluative not  of  that  courts  to  criteria  substantially  66 affect  many o t h e r  more w i l l i n g t o This  activities  a l l o w an a c t i o n analysis  damages fail  where  evaluated  the the  by  inextricable  negligent complaint  reference part  of  as a p p l i c a b l e t o  attempts  is  to  courts  should  be  towards  standards,  interrelated  actions other  against  actions  information  the  in  government r e s p o n s i b l e  of m i s l e a d i n g  is directed  a web o f  as i t  t o make  provision  to e x t e r n a l  the  negligence.  misstatement  Accordingly,  for  in  is fully  government i n n e g l i g e n t negligence.  and d e c i s i o n s " ,  in  ought  a d e c i s i o n which cannot or which forms  decisions.  to be  an  However,  the  rule  - 23 -  of  government  immunity  concerned rather the  bounds  of  to  currently  protect  the  attention  standards  for  review,  c e r t a i n cases the  This  point  from r e v i e w  a valid discretion.  focussing  in  of  it  the  the  i s elaborated  citizen  to  importance  seeks to  government this  on t h e  that  is  d e c i s i o n s taken  rule  i s capable  i s s u e of  do so e x p r e s s l y ,  of  later.  i n t h e Commonwealth  Although  courts  fails  The Makuch a n a l y s i s where  favoured  within  of  the e x i s t e n c e  with  i s s u e has n o t  the  been  result  of that  recognised.  6 7  i s a l s o a p p l i c a b l e by e x t e n s i o n  h o l d government  to  cases  bound by m i s l e a d i n g  68 information. the  use o f  sought  the  l i m i t the  the e f f e c t or  relation to  the  of  of  of  h i s t o r i c a l l y tended  estoppel,  the  i s the  estoppel with  powers.  negligent misstatement  of  much o f  leaving  inconsistent with  paragraph.  its  information  free  have  relation  Of  duty/discretion operate in  the  This  by t h e The  potential  government  In  government.  a r o l e c l o s e l y s i m i l a r to  previous  involve  recent cases  review.  to  cannot  government  its  more  to  to  c e r t a i n p r i n c i p l e s which are  doctrine  context  that  although  judicial  developed  e x e r c i s e of  i n the  estoppel  interests  have  interfering  estoppel  have  p r i n c i p l e s of  present  ensure  i n the  tort  discussed rob  to  to  of  a p p l i c a t i o n of  i n the  intended  duties  the  the c o u r t s  importance is  doctrine  to employ  estoppel, to  Such a t t e m p t s  principle,  where  i t would  performance  that  r u l e of of  in this  of  performed  its  which  have  its in  in  government  relation immunity  application is  area,  t o make v a l u e - l a d e n  e a r l i e r provided  particular  p r i n c i p l e performs  effect  impact  designed  in  the  decisions  to c i t i z e n s .  This  69 argument  i s developed The  developed  later.  p r i n c i p l e s of j u d i c i a l  by t h e  courts  in order  to  review,  on t h e  other  f a c i l i t a t e , rather  hand,  than  to  were prevent,  to  -  judicial  s c r u t i n y of  ensuring  the  which  produces.  it  content  of  decision  irrational  all  be u n r e a s o n a b l e  the  relevant  the  government.  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g and o f  control  which they  and t h e r e f o r e  that  process,71 it  be o v e r t u r n e d  over  the Thus a is  so  no r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n o r a u t h o r i t y  in  the  into  i s extremely  merely  only  if  Again,  7 0  account in  rare  on t h e g r o u n d  of  the d e c i s i o n s  low l e v e l .  unlawful  d e c i s i o n - m a k e r c o u l d have made i t .  decision-making  exert  a means  it  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s m u s t be t a k e n  to  They o f f e r  decisions i s at a r e l a t i v e l y  or outrageous  of  decision  government  However,  government  -  d e c i s i o n s of  l e g a l i t y of  will  position  the  24  while  the  for  the  resulting  that  the  decision-maker 72  failed Of  to  attach to  course,  those c o n s i d e r a t i o n s t h e i r  this generalization,  exceptions.  In p a r t i c u l a r ,  of j u d i c i a l  review  a c t i v i s m of  the c o u r t s .  courts will  be s l o w t o  review  to  overturn  "error[s].... sense but aspects  of  i n the  of  the  into  like  all  the o v e r a l l  allow c i t i z e n s  value-laden  to  system w i l l  the p r i n c i p l e s  vary  with  use t h e medium o f decisions.  The  relative  are not  the  reason i s  importance  appropriate  the  judicial  u s i n g the e x p r e s s i o n not  sense of w e i g h i n g the  public i n t e r e s t . . .  of  to  p i c t u r e remains c l e a r :  government  judgment,  weight.  i s subject  penetration  administrative  But  political  others,  the degree of  the  "correct  of  for  in a  that party  different  decision in  73 the c o u r t s . " in  truth  The  the  "different  different  private  a s p e c t s of  the  public  interests represented  interest"  are  within  74 society.  The  c o u r t s are r e l u c t a n t  the p r i n c i p l e s of j u d i c i a l which that  involve ...  r e v i e w or  the weighing of  d e c i s i o n s are of  to  the  those type  q u e s t i o n , whether  otherwise, different  to  attract  government  interests. political  through decisions "The  very  criticism  fact  and  -  controversy,  shows  that  25  they  -  are outside the  range of  discretionary  75 problems which the However, and e x p a n d . potential  that  to  earlier  provided  into  to c i t i z e n s .  These  government  decision-making rather  government  decisions.  more d r a m a t i c  extension  in  this context  the  c o n d u c t as u n f a i r , perform  a role  duty/discretion  parallel  s i m i l a r to  that  principle:  to  develop  their  on t h e  first  the c o u r t s for  performed is,  d e c i s i o n s which are v a l u e - l a d e n .  the  Again,  requirement  considerations  have  respect during  i n f o r m a t i o n which i t have  proved  substantive of  However, to  it  refuse  i n r e l a t i o n to  substantive, threaten  is likely  a that  unfairness,  will  estoppel  the  protecting  these points  of  to c l a s s i f y  acknowledged  r o l e of  has  of  content  a duty of  its  acceptable  process  s i g h t appears to  control.  relief  that  and t h e  i m p a c t i s on t h e  fairness at  refuse  relevant  development  of j u d i c i a l  to  harness  act f a i r l y  developments  than  d i s c r e t i o n of or  to  a r o u s e d by  the c o u r t s p r e c i s e l y because t h e i r  procedural,  to  pays a m e a s u r e o f  the e x p e c t a t i o n s  as opposed to  sought  account a l l  government  The  review continue  t h e p r o b l e m s g e n e r a t e d by m i s l e a d i n g  Thus t h e d u t y  ensure that to  d e c i s i o n s have  resolve  decision-makers take  decision-making  resolve."  p r i n c i p l e s of j u d i c i a l  information.  been used to  to  the  Recent E n g l i s h  in order  government  c o u r t s can  are  from  by  review  elaborated  1ater. Thus t h e  legal  issues  of misleading information the proper effectively make i t  r o l e s of to  government  a r e u n d e r p i n n e d by c o n s i d e r a t i o n s r e l a t i n g  government  hold the  a r i s i n g f r o m t h e p r o v i s i o n by  and c o u r t s .  government  r e s p o n s i b l e i n damages f o r  Where t h e c o u r t s a r e  asked  bound by m i s l e a d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n , the consequences of  having  to  or  provided  to  - 26 -  that  information,  the  right  through  of  they  government  implement v a l u e s  i n which a j u d i c i a l  aggrieved c i t i z e n . it  This  does not o p e r a t e  non-governmental divergent  in relation  approaches  a c t u a l l y to  Where g o v e r n m e n t by any o f  the  subsidies  or other  directly  to  private  the  information  that  interests  i s to l i m i t  be a v a i l a b l e t o  constraint,  provided  the  an and as  by  upon t h e means e m p l o y e d  of  by  i n any p a r t i c u l a r c a s e .  information  First,  information.77  incentives.  to  citizens,  and m o s t i m p o r t a n t l y ,  s e c t o r to p r o v i d e  p u b l i c of  The e f f e c t  ensure  The Means Of P r o v i s i o n  a number o f m e a n s .  encourage  promote  a political  information  provides  p r o d u c e and d i s s e m i n a t e t h e  to  There i s a c c o r d i n g l y a p o s s i b i l i t y depending  supply  Government Information;  to  intended  and t o  remedy w i l l  i s fundamentally  institutions.  judicial  government  5.  to  p r i n c i p l e s which are  i t s d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g i s not u s u r p e d .  circumstances  such  apply  Thirdly,  information  the  Secondly,  it  information,  i t may compel  which i s i n the  i t may do  i t may  so  itself  may by  offering  disclosure p o s s e s s i o n of  the  78 private  sector.  methods;  for  Lastly,  example,  i t may e m p l o y  i t may compel  a c o m b i n a t i o n of  d i s c l o s u r e to  the  above  i t s e l f and t h e n  itself  79 disseminate  the  This itself  to  citizens.  t h e s i s i s concerned with  the  s i t u a t i o n where  p r o d u c e s and d i s s e m i n a t e s i n f o r m a t i o n .  recognise legal  information  that  it  t h e means a d o p t e d may have a p r o f o u n d  remedies a v a i l a b l e to  misleading.  This  the  s e c t i o n , to  previous  But  follows  a c i t i z e n where  from the  the  r e l u c t a n c e of  h o l d government  is  government  important  i m p a c t upon  information the c o u r t s ,  to  the  proves discussed in  bound by o r r e s p o n s i b l e  in  - 27 -  damages  for  misleading information  involve  the  substitution  appointed  decision-maker,  provision  of  the  of  information avail  the  to  by  Similarly,  if  c e r t a i n matter the c i t i z e n is  the  the  and i t the  l i k e l y t o be d e f e a t e d  value-laden  But  government  t o compel  d e c i s i o n s of  the  later  Government I n f o r m a t i o n :  are determined  are the  nature  of  at  the  to  to  But  if  information be  an a c t i o n  that  its  p o l i c y B,  in relation  the  to  by a v a r i e t y  of  uncertainty  any to  protect  private  i n s t a n c e of  h a s no f i x e d  in private  p o l i c y on a  w o u l d be no p o l i t i c a l  the  on a  s u c h an a c t i o n .  apply  apply  not  If  information  through  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s And  the  decision  fact will  as a r e s u l t w i l l  funding  seeks to  there  Government i n f o r m a t i o n  important  under-funding  a citizen  government.  advice  of  the  of  misleading.  by p r i n c i p l e s i n t e n d e d  it  and c o n t e n t  of  the  While the  that  or  act  or d i s c l o s u r e  production  suffers  to  a p p l y where  source.  objection  government  holding  elected  same d e c i s i o n i s made by t h e  informs  similar policy advice,  6.  level  if  provide  bound by t h a t  do n o t  proves  the  who  be no p o l i t i c a l  i s A,  the  d e c i s i o n to  supply  information  and as a c o n s e q u e n c e o f  will  of  s e c t o r may be v a l u e - l a d e n ,  from c h a l l e n g i n g the  there  those  effectively  in a decision relating  the  a l l o c a t e $X t o  negligent misstatement. sector,  for  same c o n s t r a i n t s  is misleading, a citizen  prevented  do so w o u l d  i n a subsequent  o r compel  private  d e c i d e s to  certain matter,  The  encourage  the  values  as e m b o d i e d or  to  from a non-governmental  s u p p l i e r where  government  produced  it.  emanates  government  other  information  inconsistently with information  of  where  attempt  by  him p o l i c y  A  the  s e c t o r were  to  objection  to  an a g g r i e v e d  citizen.  Reliability  characteristics.  factors,  among w h i c h  addressed;  the c o s t  Its  form  the  most  and  -  practicability  of  eliminate  uncertainty;  that  information; factors form, in  (a)  the motives  nature  a l s o i n f l u e n c e the  mind,  -  p r o d u c i n g and d i s s e m i n a t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n  and t h e  content  28  and number  of  r e l i a b i l i t y of  and r e l i a b i l i t y a r e  certain  underlying  issues require  its  the  inextricably  bound  reduce  provision  intended  government  to  or  of  recipients.  information; together.  These indeed,  With  this  specific consideration.  Information Express, Implied o r I n f e r r e d G o v e r n m e n t may p r o v i d e  informational  statements  information  by e x p r e s s w o r d s .  may a l s o be i m p l i e d i n t o  or  inferred  But from  the  80 words of  or conduct of  government  importance hold  it  citizen  government.  may have  in relation  informational to  c l a i m s to  r e s p o n s i b l e i n damages must  government.  point It  to  Every a c t ,  for  omission or  aspects. bind the  This  i s of  government  decision particular  by e s t o p p e l  negligent misstatement,  i n which  a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n made by o r on b e h a l f  h a s l o n g been a c c e p t e d t h a t  or  a representation  to  the  of sufficient  81 t o f o u n d an e s t o p p e l may be i m p l i e d o r i n f e r r e d , but w i t h r e s p e c t to n e g l i g e n t m i s s t a t e m e n t i s l e s s c l e a r . courts  have  been u n w i l l i n g t o  allow implied or  the p o s i t i o n Some Commonwealth  inferred  statements  to  82 attract  liability  approach,  ;  others  have  and i n a s e r i e s o f  adopted  c a s e s l i a b i l i t y has been b a s e d  representations implied into or i n f e r r e d 83 permits. This matter i s treated l a t e r it  is  important  approaches.  at  the o u t s e t  sub s i l e n t i o a more  to  liberal upon  from l i c e n c e s , in greater  r e c o g n i s e the  consents 84 depth but  divergent  judicial  and  - 29 -  (b)  Information Volunteered o r Requested G o v e r n m e n t i n f o r m a t i o n may be e i t h e r  pursuant is  to a s p e c i f i c  request.  d i r e c t e d to c i t i z e n s  information statements  circulars and t h e  It  i s l i k e l y to  as a w h o l e o r  or pamphlets,  like.  The  to  groups  advisory  or  of  citizens,  h o l d i n g the  through  government  for misleading information  a c i t i z e n may c l e a r l y be more f a r - r e a c h i n g where  information  was p r o v i d e d t o  c i t i z e n as a member o f  it  interpretative  instance of  that  provided  be v o l u n t e e r e d when  bulletins,  i m p l i c a t i o n s of  b o u n d by o r r e s p o n s i b l e i n damages  volunteered  at  the  the  a group,  rather  85 than  a s an i n d i v i d u a l .  consideration for to  has p r o v e d  l i m i t the ambit of  underlying  provision  of  provided;  information  s i z e of  f i n d i n g of  to  the  attempts doctrine  to of  individual  c i t i z e n , but  by e f f e c t i v e l y  operating  this  number care.  b i n d the estoppel. given  a g a i n s t the government,  of  potential  The  whether liability.  i n d e c i d i n g whether  to which the  or not  of  care,  information plaintiffs,  i s s u e has n o t  specifically,  of  the  arisen  pursuant  those to  have made t h e  more  in through  request,  by r e p r e s e n t a t i o n  will  attempts  t h e p r i n c i p l e s a p p l i e d by  estoppel  its  was  to m i s l e a d i n g a d v i c e  The g r e a t m a j o r i t y  courts  manifested  may f o u n d  under a duty  actions  the  a d e s i r e w h i c h has  to a c l a s s "  government  i n any e v e n t preventing  i n the d e s i r e of  government  the c l a s s  r e l a t i o n to  the connected i s s u e s  the c o u r t s ,  a duty of  have c o n c e r n e d i n f o r m a t i o n  courts,  liability,  p l a c e d the  t h e more l i m i t e d t h e  the  relation of  reason l i e s  and " s t a t e m e n t s  premise i s t h a t  be i n f l u e n c e d by t h e  likely  The  potential  statements"  later,  particularly significant in  i n the cases i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n of  "volunteered  use  i s demonstrated  negligent misstatement.  itself  The  As  an  the  from  issue redundant.  to  ever As  for  - 30 -  judicial  review,  English  d e c i s i o n s which are information.86 thing  for  c o u r t s have shown no r e l u c t a n c e t o  inconsistent with widely  This  i s undoubtedly  the c o u r t s i n t o r t  the p o t e n t i a l  liability  of  the  protect  apply  defendant;  them on a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r j u d i c i a l  disseminated  the c o r r e c t a p p r o a c h .  cases to  quash  It  is  p r i n c i p l e s d e s i g n e d to  it  w o u l d be q u i t e  review to apply  in order  to  limit  another  for  p r i n c i p l e s intended  from c h a l l e n g e government d e c i s i o n s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h  government i n f o r m a t i o n , merely  one  limit potential  to  earlier  administrative  87 disruption.  S u c h an a p p r o a c h w o u l d  by g r a n t i n g  Oral  Information  or  r u l e of review  law to  more  Written  taking verbal  i n f o r m a t i o n may i t s e l f t a k e Information to  the  illegalities.  Information  likely  to  d i s p e n s a t i o n from the p r i n c i p l e s of j u d i c i a l  widespread (c)  run c o u n t e r  provided  f o r m may be o r a l  a variety  of  documentary  t o c i t i z e n s as a w h o l e o r  be p u b l i s h e d i n a f o r m w h i c h  to  or w r i t t e n . and o t h e r  groups  i s permanent  of  Written forms.  citizens  and w r i t t e n ,  is  b u t much  88 will  d e p e n d upon t h e  Information fall query  anywhere over  provided inquiry. fall of  provided  at  nature to  of  the  uncertainty  an i n d i v i d u a l  on a r a n g e  from the  Clearly,  to  request  reply given  the formal  i n r e s p o n s e to  to  written  a detailed,  end o f  adopted w i l l  the  vary with  range.  But  i n every  to  may  an ad h o c  advice  arm's  s o p h i s t i c a t e d or complicated information  t h e more f o r m a l  formality  pursuant  informal, oral  a c o u n t e r o r by t e l e p h o n e ,  by a s e n i o r o f f i c i a l  citizen  addressed.  length  is likely  case the  t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , and i n  to  degree  particular  - 31 -  with  the degree of  government to  r e l i a b i l i t y w h i c h t h e c i t i z e n w i s h e s to  is  " r e l i a b i l i t y " bears a s u b t l e l y d i f f e r e n t  to whether  the  uncertainty  i s government-uncontrolled,  the  i s a guage m e r e l y o f  There  i s always a r i s k  g o v e r n m e n t o r by some o t h e r inaccurate, arrives;  A weather  a h e a l t h w a r n i n g may  cigarettes is  or wrong.  i s lower  than  government-controlled,  a guage,  not merely  of  of  i t being adhered to  of  the  later  risk that  e n t i t l e d to  it  that  the  when g i v e n  but  part  of  later  tar  is.  However,  reliability it  by g o v e r n m e n t .  provided  in fact  content where  The  of  a l s o of  where  be never  uncertainty information  the  is  likelihood  second concern a r i s e s because  a change of  an o f f i c i a l benefit,  policy  or  that  he  t h a t a d v i c e may be or because i t  i n v a l i d a t e d by a d e l i b e r a t e c h a n g e o f interpretation  will  or  advises a c i t i z e n  i s wrong when g i v e n ,  the  by  brand X  the the  of  accurate,  w h i c h may be a c c u r a t e when p r o v i d e d ,  example,  government to  is  whether  r e l i a b i l i t y of  i t s l i k e l y a c c u r a c y , but  because i t  Where  f o r e c a s t may p r e d i c t r a i n w h i c h  a particular statutory  either  of  institution, will  degree of  information,  For  misleading  the  the  degree  information,  be d i s o w n e d by g o v e r n m e n t b e c a u s e o f  interpretation. is  that  state  in fact  the  the l i k e l i h o o d t h a t  person or  information  or g o v e r n m e n t - c o n t r o l l e d .  the u n c e r t a i n t y information  meaning  i n response to which the  supplied i s government-uncontrolled  or r i g h t .  the  achieve.  The w o r d according  o b t a i n or  is  right  approach  a p p l i c a t i o n of  on  the  89 relevant  statutory  information adhered to they w i l l  provisions.  p r o v i d e d by g o v e r n m e n t are  separate only  be m e s h e d .  compendious  But  form,  They w i l l  the  two c o n c e r n s -  whether  i s a c c u r a t e and w h e t h e r  on a t h e o r e t i c a l  analysis;  present themselves  how r e l i a b l e i s t h i s  information?  to  i t will in  the be  practice  the c i t i z e n  in  the  - 32 -  The great But  degree of  importance  i t will  r e l i a b i l i t y of  to a c i t i z e n  a l s o be h i g h l y  information  d e c i d i n g how t o  relevant,  bound by o r r e s p o n s i b l e  the c o u r t s  to  information  grant  a remedy  m u s t and does t o  the  information  the  inherent of  maybe  even c r u c i a l ,  oral  i n damages  a large extent  information.  written  It  there  is a greater  p o s s i b i l i t y of  information,  by  or  before  superior,  the  concerned."Written  official it  advice...  nature  of  the  advice that  advice  to  the  p o s s i b i l i t y of  the  requires  i s given  the its  to  reliability  to  paper  writing  author  it  or  to  the c i t i z e n ,  regard  than  is likely  formulation.  citizen  of  of  the c o u r t s  as b e i n g g r e a t e r  committed its  the  governmment  a c h e c k b e i n g made on  i s p u b l i s h e d to  the  The w i l l i n g n e s s  it.  reflect  responsible for  conduct.  for  i s clear that  r e c e i v e more d e t a i l e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n d u r i n g  when  of  hold  information  Information  may be  seeks to  t o a c i t i z e n m i s l e d by  i t s e l f when p r o v i d e d .  r e l i a b i l i t y of  information  shape h i s f u t u r e  p r o v e s m i s l e a d i n g and t h e c i t i z e n  government  that  government  In  to  addition,  written o r by a c o l l e a g u e  citizens  reflect  about  and s u b j e c t s  the that 90  The  very  fact  incentive the  to  ways,  citizen. the  of  information upon t h e  Commonwealth  to  take  form  nature  of  of  the  w h i c h was  it  authorities of  two  forms.  to e n s u r e ,  the  judicial  this  The  law i n a  s o u g h t by t h e  the o u t s e t  indicates that  an  is reliable.  remedy  a natural  from  is  information  bound by o r r e s p o n s i b l e i n damages  r e l i a b i l i t y of  either  written  reexamination." 91  may be r e f l e c t e d by  are m a n i f e s t a t i o n s  of  and  i n permanent  responsible for  oral  depending All  i s expressed  criticism  c o s t and p r a c t i c a b i l i t y , t h a t  government  inherent  it  those  l i m i t s of  reliability of  that  review,  for low.  within lesser variety  aggrieved  r e l u c t a n c e to information The  reluctance  the  present i s most  hold  state likely  -  First, information  Thus  i t was h e l d t h a t  local  p l a c e s upon g o v e r n m e n t no d u t y  who w i s h e d t o  zoning  -  the c o u r t s are r e l u c t a n t  oral  building,  33  by-law  to  find  a duty  of  c a r e a r o s e where  l e a r n whether  lease i t  "committed h i s fortune  of  to  the p r o v i s i o n  care in  t h e owner o f  to a government  telephone  of  negligence. a  he c o u l d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h  as o f f i c e s  one b r i e f  that  the  department,  conversation with  the  92 planning  officer."  declined  to  clients  to  In a n o t h e r  f i n d a duty  of  cases  avowedly  It  operative  the  t h e s u p p l i e r and t h e  i s c l e a r from o t h e r  cases that  of  Australia  i n s t r u c t e d by  was a f f e c t e d  made o v e r  authority  basis that  c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s the  circumstances,  property  statement  local  p r o c e e d on t h e  e x i s t e d between the  their  r e l i e d upon an o r a l  u n i d e n t i f i e d o f f i c e r of  Court  c a r e where a s o l i c i t o r ,  a s c e r t a i n whether  proposals,  c a s e , the High  the  by  no " s p e c i a l  road-widening  telephone 93  concerned.  his  by  These  relationship"  r e c i p i e n t of  the  information,  r e l i a b i l i t y of  the  information  oral  i n f o r m a t i o n may,  be s u f f i c i e n t l y r e l i a b l e t o  found a  an  in  but itself.  appropriate  special  94 relationship.  B u t where  circumstances  of  unreasonable,  a duty  nature  of  the  i t s p r o v i s i o n c o n s p i r e to of  care i n the p r o v i s i o n of there e x i s t s  the  render  c a r e i s u n l i k e l y to oral  information  a common p r a c t i c e o f  information  and  r e l i a n c e upon  be f o u n d .  it  Thus a d u t y  i s u n l i k e l y to  formal, written  the  arise  inquiry  where  and  95 response  ;  o r where  the  i n q u i r y was made on a  social  ;  o r where  the  i n q u i r e r was h i m s e l f e x p e r t  96 occasion  in  the  97 field ; o r where the i n q u i r y c o m p l e x i t y , perhaps i n v o l v i n g opposed to  a straightforward  of  r e l a t e d t o a m a t t e r o f some the e x e r c i s e of s k i l l or judgment, as 98 matter of f a c t . The e f f e c t i s t h a t  -  the  l i k e l i h o o d of  a duty of  correspond broadly  to  the  34  -  care being found  to  exist  l i k e l y r e l i a b i l i t y of  the  i s made  to  information  when  provided. Secondly, reflected  i n the  common t o  estoppel,  criminal  defence  the l e s s e r r e l i a b i l i t y of  approach 99  of  the  reliance  the c o u r t s  establish that  concerned.  In  upon o r a l  information  was u n r e a s o n a b l e  be  the  that  i n order  actions  a finding  may  requirement,  reasonable  r e l a t i o n to  as has been d e m o n s t r a t e d ,  the  and  1 0 1  i t was  information  to  100  o f f i c i a l l y induced e r r o r ,  information  misstatement,  by  negligent misstatement  s u c c e e d t h e c i t i z e n must upon  adopted  oral  that  will  for  for the  to him to  rely  negligent citizen's  usually  manifest  102 itself the are,  in a j u d i c i a l  requirements at  least  reasonable  of  refusal a special  in theory,  for  the  to  impose a duty of  r e l a t i o n s h i p and o f  distinct.  citizen  care,  In  relation  although  reasonable  reliance  to e s t o p p e l ,  i t may  t o h a v e a c t e d upon a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g  be  of  the  103 information  provided  information  was p r o v i d e d  citizen's  to  him,  w h i c h may p r o v e i m p o r t a n t 104 orally. In such a c a s e , both  misunderstanding  and h i s s u b s e q u e n t  where  c o n d u c t must  the  the have  been  105 reasonable. An applicable  i s s u e of  standard  of  importance  in this context  reasonableness  i s whether  is objective  or  the  subjective.  It  is  106 reasonably  clear in relation  to  both  107 misstatement t h a t the standard e x i s t s i n r e l a t i o n to the defence  estoppel  and  negligent  is objective. S u c h a u t h o r i t y as of o f f i c i a l l y induced e r r o r suggests  108 similar will  conclusion.  not c o n s i d e r the  An o b j e c t i v e  s t a n d a r d means  c i t i z e n ' s mental  or emotional  t h a t the  courts  idiosyncracies in  a  - 35 -  assessing of  the  makes  the  reasonableness of  infinite varieties the  internal  of  his reliance.  temperament,  c h a r a c t e r of  a given  "The  law takes  no  account  i n t e l l e c t and e d u c a t i o n a c t so d i f f e r e n t  in  which  different  109 men."  This  may work h a r d s h i p  society,  who may be l e s s  reliance  upon o f f i c i a l  you  get  it  information; to  subjective  to  but  belief. to the of for  guidance,  r e l y more  the  standard that  degree  of  the  by m a k i n g meagre  efforts  for  him t o  However,  estoppel  to  heavily of  protection  to o b t a i n  the c o u r t  citizens  of  alleviate  the  this  abuse  and t h e n  the  honesty  appears  misstatement.  of  and  It  to  oral information  defence  of  such a  of  by  his  later  standard, he  the  alleged in  1 1 0  relation that  o f f i c i a l l y induced  t o be a d o p t e d  A The  alleging that  c r i m i n a l c o u r t s makes  reasonableness  lower.  problem.  be f i x e d  i s argued  sure  illiterate  upon  w o u l d be m i t i g a t e d  standard  r e c o g n i s e d by C a n a d i a n standard  "Make  against misleading  information  be r e a s o n a b l e ,  particular j u s t i f i c a t i o n for  an o b j e c t i v e  admonition  A c i t i z e n who i s other  of  of  i s l i k e l y t o be c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y  objective  and n e g l i g e n t  law newly  than  members  definition  assiduous c i t i z e n might  satisfy  the  advantaged  and t o whom t h e  reasonableness would  less  those e f f o r t s  necessity  less  discriminating in their  h i m by t h e c o u r t s  possibility  believed  the  i n w r i t i n g " may be m e a n i n g l e s s .  may be e x p e c t e d  afforded  to  error  it  appropriate  in  that  context. Finally, antecedent  there  evidential  is  in a l l  difficulty,  cases concerning oral namely  t h a t of  information  satisfying  the c o u r t  an on  111 the  appropriate  provided in  the  relation  standard  of  proof  alleged information. to w r i t t e n  information  that This  the  government i n  difficulty  fact  is unlikely  w h i c h has been p r e s e r v e d ,  to  any  occur problem  -  that  may a r i s e w i t h  36  r e s p e c t to  -  such i n f o r m a t i o n  b e i n g more l i k e l y  to  112 concern construction information  the  p r e c i s e words  than  evidence.  evidential  But  i n r e l a t i o n to  h u r d l e may be i n s u r m o u n t a b l e .  are f o r g o t t e n .  oral Memories  T h e r e may be a c o n f l i c t o f  fade;  evidence  between  113 the  citizen  may even  and t h e  be u n i d e n t i f i e d  scepticism  i s l i k e l y to  understandably misleading  and t h e  hesitant  government  investigatory elicited  official  powers  with  and u n t r a c e a b l e , be a t to  its  That  i n which case  strongest:  the  accept uncorroborated  information. and n o t  official  judicial  courts  are  allegations  Even t h e Ombudsman,  of  equipped  o b l i g e d t o make d e c i s i o n s upon  in a courtroom w i t h i n law of  whom he d e a l t .  the c o n s t r a i n t s of  e v i d e n c e , may f i n d  it  extremely  with  facts  the a d v e r s a r i a l  difficult  to  process  ascertain  114 w h a t was a c t u a l l y  said across a counter  o r on a  telephone.  (d) Assurances and Undertakings Government i n f o r m a t i o n examples  of  information  provided  often  i n response  which are g o v e r n m e n t - u n c o n t r o l l e d the  uncertainty  take  the  express,  relates  form of  an a s s u r a n c e o r  as w h e r e  the  government  to  are weather  i s government-controlled,  to  the  future.  future  and c r o p  the  uncertainties forecasts.  information  Where  is likely  undertaking.  This  undertakes  shareholders  to  Obvious  " p r o m i s e " may of  a  to  be company  115 that  it will  illegal  a l l o w t h e company  immigrants  authorities, other  not  their  cases the  that,  if  they  cases w i l l  all  to  fail,  surrender  o r where to  be t r e a t e d  p r o m i s e may be i m p l i e d o r  the  it  assures  appropriate  on t h e i r m e r i t s . * * 6  inferred.  Thus  if  a  In  citizen  -  who w i s h e s  to  bring  adoption  i s advised  Minister  if  a child  of  treat  -  another  nationality  t h a t he may be a l l o w e d  he f i r s t m e e t s  justification  37  the  t o do  certain conditions,  advice  into  so by  the  country  the  appropriate  he may w i t h  as an a s s u r a n c e  that,  if  for  some  the  conditions 117  are met, The  the  courts  citizens the  relevant  discretion will  have e x p e r i e n c e d  to h o l d  be e x e r c i s e d i n h i s  considerable d i f f i c u l t y  g o v e r n m e n t bound by o r r e s p o n s i b l e  c l e a r e s t assurances or  undertakings,  whether  when  favour. asked  i n damages  express,  by for  implied  even or  inferred. It applied only A statement far  was e a r l y to of  established  statements intention  of  that estoppel  existing  fact,  could accordingly  as i t m i s r e p r e s e n t e d  the maker's  by  and n o t  found  actual  representation 118 to  promises.  an e s t o p p e l  intention,  the  only  state  in of  so his  119 mind b e i n g  as much a f a c t  as t h e  cases are  rare.  resort  complain o f . . . i s  his  to  intention,  "What t h e  not  state  representee that  that...he  the  never  of  his digestion.  is generally  representor had any  found  Such i n the  i s refusing  such i n t e n t i o n  to  in  last  carry  the  out  first  120 place." d i d not  The commend  Property  r e f u s a l of the law to countenance such c o m p l a i n t s i t s e l f t o D e n n i n g J . , as he t h e n w a s , i n C e n t r a l L o n d o n 121 T r u s t L t d . v . H i g h T r e e s House L t d . , and he c o n t r i v e d  effectively estoppel.  to  overturn  Later courts  have r e c o g n i s e d t h e may  found  to  it  his detriment  by  propounding  i n Canada  new d o c t r i n e ,  an e s t o p p e l  and i n t e n d e d  it  if  the  as w e l l  promisee.  doctrine as i n  of  England  promissory 123  by w h i c h an a s s u r a n c e as t o  promissor  t o be a c t e d u p o n , by t h e  122  the  with  intended the  However,  to  result  the  future  be l e g a l l y bound that  a citizen  it  was a c t e d  who w i s h e s  to  by  it  upon  - 38 -  employ  the  doctrine  against  the  government f a c e s  the  difficulty  that  its  124 operation the  is  subject  to  the  government i s l a r g e l y  emergence  of  the  principles discussed later  protected  doctrine  field  of  recent  judicial  review  may be a b l e  to  namely,  enforcement  the  achieve  estoppels  has a c c o r d i n g l y  by g o v e r n m e n t a s s u r a n c e s o r However,  from  which  generally.  f a i l e d to b e n e f i t  The  those  misled  undertakings.  developments have opened  i n E n g l a n d and A u s t r a l i a  up t h e  p o s s i b i l i t y that  by a s i d e w i n d w h a t he c a n n o t of  by  p r o m i s e s made  to  achieve  in  the  the  citizen  directly;  him by g o v e r n m e n t .  The  125 authorities offer  the  are  discussed in detail  p o s s i b i l i t y of  c h a l l e n g i n g by  government d e c i s i o n s which undertakings, applicant  to  at  should respect far  the  will  favour If  willingness to  r e a s o n s why  in  be p r e p a r e d  negligent breaking  to  apply  develop  the  to  first  d e c i s i o n made  take  this  judicial  review  government a s s u r a n c e s  It  offered  to  in relation remains  development,  its  courts  to  or  the to  him  be s e e n  and w h e t h e r  p r i n c i p l e s of promises,  it  have r e c e n t l y m a n i f e s t e d judicial appears  review that  a corresponding willingness  misstatement those  is  for  they  how it  Canada.  b i n d government to  prepared  from e a r l i e r  any  i n essence  applications  no o p p o r t u n i t y  some Commonwealth to  but  t h a t assurance or u n d e r t a k i n g .  courts w i l l  find  depart  l e a s t where  present  later,  to  promises.  hold  to  others use the  government r e s p o n s i b l e  Broken  promises  so as  a effectively  may  be  tort  of  i n damages  have t r a d i t i o n a l l y  been  for unable,  126 in  the  absence of  a contract,  However, a r e c e n t d e c i s i o n of o p e n s up t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t  to  found  an a c t i o n  in  damages.  127 t h e New Z e a l a n d C o u r t o f A p p e a l t h e m a k i n g by g o v e r n m e n t o f p r o m i s e s  which  -  it  subsequently  fails  misstatement. discussion  The  as i t  39  -  t o e x e c u t e may g i v e  authority  rise  is particularly  concerns a government  to  an a c t i o n i n  important  assurance.  for  This  negligent  the  present  development  and  128 its  i m p l i c a t i o n s are d i s c u s s e d  (e)  Fees  and In  Canadian  later.  Charges the m i n i - b u d g e t  government  of  November 1 9 8 4 ,  e v i n c e d an i n t e n t i o n  to  the  recently-elected  i m p o s e c h a r g e s upon  those  129 benefitting activities  from c e r t a i n of  of  charges,  to  the  Solutions  to  s u c h as t h e means o f  d i s c r e t i o n of  of  the  range,  practical  from q u a l i t y  collection,  have  department,  be d e v i s e d .  new c h a r g e s w i l l  activities.  be t o  The  The  control  problems generated  the a p p r o p r i a t e  s o l u t i o n s may r e a d i l y  effect  informational  c o n c e r n e d a r e on a w i d e  forecasting.  that  its  to  by t h e  been l e f t  imposition  i n each case  i n d i c a t i n g an  immediate  assumption  and most  i n c r e a s e government  weather  obvious  revenues.  But  130 the  economic t h e o r y  further  of  e f f e c t s may be  information  d i s c u s s e d above  indicates  that  generated. 131  It  h a s been s e e n  economic t h e o r y ,  that  government  information  information  These  characteristics its  of  in  imperfections  information  of  marginal  the cost,  fact the  that, use o f  to  response  at Pareto  undertake  the  are the consequence  by t h e  optimum,  information  model  to i m p e r f e c t i o n s  as a c o m m o d i t y ,  economically e f f i c i e n t production  result  neoclassical  may be e x p e c t e d  and d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f market.  on t h e  which operate  private where  sector.  of production in of  the  to  prevent  This  p r i c e i s equal  w o u l d be f r e e .  If  the  is  the  to  information  is  - 40 -  available  free  of  charge,  c h a r g e must be l e v i e d other of  hand,  levying  information The  if  of  for  will  the if  it  private  cannot  be  characteristics  to  be c o v e r e d .  to  a the  as t h e  price  costs.  the  latter.  may be e x p e c t e d , to encourage  intervenes  do so f r e e  it: On  underutilisation,  eradicate  sector,  government  of  to  if  first  The  levying  like  the  of of  levying  underutil isation.  provide  charge  just  the  information  the optimal  to  citizens,  welfare  of  achieved.  Fundamental  production  tend  to  underproduce  g o v e r n m e n t r e s o u r c e s may c i r c u m v e n t  must be p r e p a r e d i s to  sector w i l l  c o s t s are  exceed marginal  use o f  c h a r g e s by  society  production  government i n f o r m a t i o n  Accordingly, it  private  a charge w i l l  these d i f f i c u l t i e s , but charges  the  of  by t h e  to  this  analysis  information private  prevent  sector.  But  i s the assumption its it  economically has a l r e a d y  that  the  efficient  been  pointed  132 out  that  large  of  in  attempts  is  accordingly clear that  production the  to  parts  of  necessity  reduce or  information for  the  private  eliminate  the  s e c t o r are p r o f i t a b l y uncertainties  i n many c a s e s t h e may be a c h i e v e d by  government  facing others.  economically the  engaged  private  It  efficient sector  without  intervention. 133  Furthermore,  it  h a s been d e m o n s t r a t e d  government d e c i s i o n s r e l a t i n g information  may be u n d e r p i n n e d  ensure economic may be m o t i v a t e d particular  to  advantages  over  to  the  production  by d i s t r i b u t i o n a l  government-controlled private  sector  than  the  imperfections.  considerations. uncertainties, i n the  that  and d i s s e m i n a t i o n  by c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o t h e r  e f f i c i e n c y by r e m e d y i n g m a r k e t  the  above  In  relation  i t may  p r o v i s i o n of  of  need  to  Government in  possess  information,  which  -  operate event,  as i n c e n t i v e s it  i s clear that  information itself is  is  it  to  in part  to  to  reduce or  has  itself  Bulletins  and o v e r - t h e - c o u n t e r  to  same f i e l d ,  are l e v i e d  follows  from  sector,  necessarily taxpayers, the  the  t h a t not  if  economic  r a i s i n g of  imposition.  For  cost,  in turn  if  laws  or  that  free  for  of  sector,  from  tend  to  the  at  for  Yet  information  at  simple  and  find  the  by  expense  the must  of  although  that  n e o c l a s s i c a l model.  at  is  Indeed,  is a practical in  favour  a price less  be a r t i f i c i a l l y  an o v e r - a l l o c a t i o n  it  that  by g o v e r n m e n t  be a c h i e v e d the  or  s e c t o r may  information  provided  Revenue  Interpretation  a profit of  of  136  private  i s made a v a i l a b l e  involve  purpose  system of  government i n f o r m a t i o n  to  the  is There  generated  e f f i c i e n c y may a c t u a l l y m i l i t a t e  information  sector  and p o l i c i e s .  Rulings.  charge,  i s to  disseminates  a s s i s t a n c e on r o u t i n e  provision  information  any  problems.  Advance R u l i n g s ,  Advance  demand may be e x p e c t e d will  taxation  private  citizens  the  efficiency  charges  economic  which  to  c o n c l u s i o n t o be drawn  possibility,  marginal  all  for  facts  duplicates  be made a v a i l a b l e  logical  where  the  information  government sometimes private  advice  and  uncertainties  by t a x  involving  Charges  provide  by  In  private  e s t a b l i s h e d an e l a b o r a t e  i n the  It  i n the  eliminate  produces  which the  i s provided  citizens  provision  135  i n the market.  uncertainties  An e x a m p l e  and c o r p o r a t e  Canada T a x a t i o n  possible  intervene  and s u c c e s s f u l i n d u s t r y  individual  matters.  -  government sometimes  i n response  addressing.  a large  which  to  41  of  of  their than  stimulated, government  137 resources allocative arguments  to  the  provision  considerations for  and a g a i n s t  of  that  information.  are  not  determinative.  the  imposition  of  But The  charges  once  agian,  main burden  of  i n such c a s e s  is  the  -  distributional . issue,  will  levied for  or b e n e f i t s ,  relating  to  be v a l u e - l a d e n .  information  for  -  d e c i s i o n r e a c h e d by g o v e r n m e n t  as on many i s s u e s  information, were  The  42  that  as t o  the  production  on  this  and d i s s e m i n a t i o n  T h u s i t w o u l d be s u r p r i s i n g i f the  would o p e r a t e  entitlement  effectively  of  to  citizens  reduce  of  charges  to  grants  any g r a n t  or  139 benefit  found  to  be p a y a b l e .  government  seems f o r  government  with  entitled their  free  charge  by means  been t h o s e where and a b o v e  that  the  c o s t of  have  t o any of  the  those  providing  the  The  at  taxes  to  large.  National that  provide they  exceptional  has had a v a l u e  stated  of  of  s h o u l d be  p r o d u c e d by g o v e r n m e n t  resources.  the Department of Rulings,  as c i t i z e n s  payment  information  information  f o r Advance  the b a s i c assumption  been t h a t ,  which accrued to c i t i z e n s  C i r c u l a r 70-6R of schedule  l o n g to  fact,  i t s resources through  of  benefit  In  the  "it  s e r v i c e s h o u l d be b o r n e  cases  have  recipient  over  Thus  Revenue,  for  Information  announcing  the  fee  seems r e a s o n a b l e . . . t h a t by  t h o s e who b e n e f i t  the  from  140 it  and t h a t  This  taxpayers  has e f f e c t i v e l y  i n general l i m i t e d the  should not  be f u r t h e r  levying  charges  of  burdened."  t o c a s e s where  the  141 reliability  Revenue  of  the  information  Canada T a x a t i o n  r e c e n t move t o w a r d s information potential,  t h e more  represents and t h e  recession.  Its  if  government  of  providing  is  treats  i s to  to c o n t i n u e  information  be e c o n o m i c a l l y  Advance  general  to  efficient.  call  of  if  not  Rulings  total.  of  their  Thus 142  as b i n d i n g .  i m p o s i t i o n of  a recognition  stronger  result  is high,  charges  The for  r e q u i r e more c o g e n t  citizens,  off, where  government  revenue-generating  economic e f f i c i e n c y d u r i n g  to w r i t e  the  distributional  i n whole  or  the l e v y i n g  in part, of  a arguments the  charges  cost would  - 43 -  If  charges are  government i n t e n d s legal  treat  ramifications:  therefore  the  tension  the  is unlikely  imposition not  to  of  fact  between  a socially  just  information  their  cannot  court  information  desires for  the  the motives  of  a s s u m p t i o n s made a b o u t differ.  The  by m a k i n g  indicates  degree  uncertainty  some p a r t  by o r  or  the  all  degree  reasonable,  the of  the  form  emanated.  court  it  the  a r i s e s whether by  the the  courts citizen  r e s p o n s i b l e i n damages  by d i s p l a y i n g a g r e a t e r  for  the  t o pay  remove  s e e k i n g to  w i l l i n g n e s s to  fact  nature  of  in  for  care or  of  and  the the  the subsequent  government  concerned,  the  will  reasonable,  hold the  impose a duty  subsidy  charge  information  that  may  producing  That  information  it  a  reliability.  should r e f l e c t  the  the  the  is  treated  information.  the c o s t of  assumption  In  charge  c a n be  required  the  for  the  i m p o s i t i o n of  of  a  proceedings.  an a s s e s s m e n t w h i c h  and c o n t e n t If  rather  information  reduce or of  reflect,  a l l o c a t i o n and  c i r c u m s t a n c e s , and i n p a r t i c u l a r on t h e  concerned,  brought  to  widespread  to  i m p o s i t i o n of  by c i t i z e n s  t h e c i t i z e n may assume t h a t  source from which i t  proceedings  the  r e l i a b i l i t y of  those motives  c i t i z e n meet  all  but  g o v e r n m e n t i n i m p o s i n g a c h a r g e and  a s s u m p t i o n may be o b j e c t i v e l y  question  of  t h a t he i s b u y i n g a h i g h  dependupon  resources,  generate  g o v e r n m e n t may i n t e n d m e r e l y  the  information;  charges are  s i g n i f i c a n c e , and i n p a r t i c u l a r w h e t h e r  as an i n d i c a t i o n o f Clearly,  if  no  and  The more  concerned i s b i n d i n g ,  society's  have  prove m i s l e a d i n g ,  an e c o n o m i c a l l y e f f i c i e n t  d i s t r i b u t i o n of  the  imposition will  For  the c o u r t must d e c i d e whether  h a s any l e g a l  which  proceedings.  w h i c h a c h a r g e h a s been l e v i e d may w e l l such a c a s e ,  information  r a i s e s a new i s s u e .  the  the  for  as b i n d i n g ,  to g e n e r a t e  charges that  imposed o n l y  bound  example t o make a  -  finding  of  reasonable  the  to  the c i t i z e n  r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of  reliability effect  expected  raise i t .  reliability.  As a r e s u l t , involve  the a d d i t i o n of the  not  follows that  to  from  the  little  the  charge  fact  that  indicates  the c i r c u m s t a n c e s ,  In  to c o n f e r  other words,  reflect,  their  on t h e  rather  that  injury,  where  information  t h e c o u r t s may  than to  imposition for  high  the  a be  generate,  misleading  so much an i n c r e a s e i n t h e c i t i z e n ' s  an i n s u l t t o  i s s u e of  a matter  injury  which should  not  liability.  S e l f - B i n d i n g Government Information In  an i d e a l  world,  all  perfectly  c o r r e c t when p r o v i d e d  That t h i s  state  to  This  s u c h as i n any e v e n t  to a l l o w c h a r g e s a t most to  reliability.  affect  the  been  and i n d e e d i t may be o f  the c i t i z e n ' s b e l i e f  high degree of  information w i l l  7.  to  date,  i s s u e has n o t  o f w h i c h i s t o make t h a t b e l i e f more l i k e l y t o be r e a s o n a b l e  relatively  as  to  This  m u s t be a s s e s s e d by r e f e r e n c e  the c i r c u m s t a n c e s are  high  -  reliance.  c a n v a s s e d i n any a u t h o r i t y advantage  44  l a r g e number be f o u n d  alleviating binding  of  affairs  from b e i n g a c h i e v e d i s a p p a r e n t  of c a s e s d e a l i n g w i t h m i s l e a d i n g government and U n i t e d S t a t e s  p r o b l e m w o u l d be f o r  information  p r o v i d e d by  be  and w o u l d s u b s e q u e n t l y be a d h e r e d  i s far  i n Commonwealth the  government i n f o r m a t i o n would  it  law r e p o r t s .  government v o l u n t a r i l y  to c i t i z e n s .  Of  course,  to. from  information One means to  treat  as  has  of as  144 a l r e a d y been p o i n t e d o u t , where  the  information  uncertainty.  Where  t h i s could provide  i s provided  the  in  uncertainty  a solution  response to a is  only  government-controlled  government-uncontrolled,  -  government i s unable correct  to  relieve  45  -  by t r e a t i n g  him f r o m  the  the c i t i z e n adverse  as i f  its  information  consequences of  it  was  being in  fact  145 misleading. Some d e p a r t m e n t s governments certain  of  the  have v o l u n t a r i l y  Canadian  adopted  and U n i t e d  systems whereby  specified circumstances obtain  information  States  federal  citizens  may  which the  in  department  146 is  prepared e f f e c t i v e l y  exceptional  cases,  d e s i g n e d to  provide  more u s u a l  In  involving formal  this  the  These  are  sophisticated  information,  procedures  in contrast with  r e l y i n g on a b s e n c e o f  an i l l u m i n a t i n g c o n t r a s t  by t a x a t i o n  authorities  Kingdom  uncertainties  procedure i s provided  i n Canada  ( I n l a n d Revenue)  facing citizens  information  system developed  to  citizens  offers  may be o b t a i n e d  as t o  the  policy.  first  place,  In  the  is a written  Corporate  and on by  the  (Revenue  i n order  to  as a r e s u l t o f  statement  a specific  tax  by Revenue Canada T a x a t i o n three  main avenues  interpretation  by w h i c h  or a p p l i c a t i o n of  t h e c i t i z e n may o b t a i n provided  Rulings Directorate,  interprete  to  informing  provision  i n r e l a t i o n to  provide  tax  of  within  one o f  the  general  c a t e g o r i e s of  tax  law  or  Ruling,  Department's  how i t  will  a particular  excluded  The  a p p l i c a t i o n must c o n t a i n  148 transactions.  tax  information  an A d v a n c e  a t a x p a y e r by t h e him o r h e r  to  147 contemplated t r a n s a c t i o n . An a p p l i c a t i o n f o r an A d v a n c e R u l i n g w i l l be a c c e p t e d i f i t r e l a t e s t o a p r o p o s e d t r a n s a c t i o n and does n o t fall  the  policy. The  which  less  and s p e c i f i c  and t h e U n i t e d  reduce or e l i m i n a t e  as b i n d i n g .  more o r  regard,  systems employed  Canada T a x a t i o n )  law or  regard  government p r a c t i c e of  informality. different  to  a c l e a r statement  of  -  the  question  on w h i c h  46  -  the R u l i n g  i s sought,  and a c o m p l e t e  and  detailed  149 statement  of  the  a minimum  fee of  relevant $250,  facts.  a charge  It of  must  a l s o be a c c o m p a n i e d  $50 an h o u r  currently  by  b e i n g made  for  150 the  preparation  of  Advance R u l i n g s .  government has announced  its  Advance R u l i n g s  of  general  will  as g u i d a n c e ;  The  intention  recently-elected  t o commence  the  federal  publication  of  151 serve  only  t o whom t h e y a r e The the  broad  not  principal  bind  But  Advance R u l i n g s  published  apply  only  to  Rulings  the  taxpayers  given.  r e l i a b i l i t y which  will  interest.  it  advantage  to  provides.  the Department  if  the  taxpayer  However,  the  of  an A d v a n c e R u l i n g  a R u l i n g may be r e v o k e d  statement  of  relevant  facts  is  and  contained  153 a material  omission or m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ,  interpretation the  result  effect  of  prior  of  l a w on w h i c h  a court to  the  the  decision,  date  of  Ruling  o r where was b a s e d  an  is later  i n which case r e v o c a t i o n  d e c i s i o n and w i l l  changed  will  be e f f e c t e d  not  as  take  by n o t i c e  to  154 the  taxpayer.  where  the  time-limit  transaction  that  a Ruling  effective  i s not  a Ruling w i l l  not  substantially  completed w i t h i n  s p e c i f i e d i n the R u l i n g ,  confirmation which  Similarly,  date  the  Ruling  is s t i l l  i s based c h a n g e s , of  the  change,  unless  the  in effect.  the R u l i n g  and t h e  bind the  taxpayer Again,  c e a s e s to  taxpayer w i l l  Department the  obtains where  the  be v a l i d f r o m  not  law  on  the  be so n o t i f i e d  by  156 the Department. by n o t i c e  to  the  Finally,  a Ruling  may be r e v o k e d  t a x p a y e r c o n c e r n e d where  or  s e r i e s of  actions,  and i t  i s determined  in  accord w i t h Department p r a c t i c e , or  it  concerns a continuing  t h a t the R u l i n g 157  is  prospectively  in  error.  i s no  action longer  - 47 -  The Advance  view of  the Corporate  Rulings Directorate  R u l i n g p r o c e d u r e has been " a n i m p o r t a n t  i s that  and u s e f u l  the  s e r v i c e to  the  158 business the  community."  function  letter  It  has c e r t a i n l y p r o v e d  remains r e l a t i v e l y  r u l i n g p r o c e d u r e of  small  the U n i t e d  Thus i n t h e 1981-82 t a x y e a r ,  popular,  compared w i t h States  the Department  the  Internal  although  analagous  Revenue  issued a total  private  Service.  of  1,000  159 Advance  Rulings.  the Department, compliance,  The in that  p r o c e d u r e has had b e n e f i c i a l it  decreased the  has i n c r e a s e d u n i f o r m i t y volume  of  tax  correspond to  Nonetheless, of  grounds,  those  set out  and  the  the  and l i g h t e n e d t h e b u r d e n on t h e f a c t s o f a consummated 160  i n the  Ruling.  t h e p r o c e d u r e has b e e n s u b j e c t e d t o c r i t i c i s m including delay,  for  voluntary  l i t i g a t i o n , informed  Department of i s s u e s of c o n c e r n to t a x p a y e r s , e x a m i n i n g o f f i c e r s , who need o n l y v e r i f y t h a t  transaction  spin-offs  necessity for  full  on a  disclosure,  variety the  161 number  and s c o p e o f  availability exclusively fall  of  e x c l u s i o n s , and c o s t .  procedure  its  The  so t h a t  information  i s the  p u b l i s h e d by t h e D e p a r t m e n t t o the Department's  fact  that  the  it  applies  t r a n s a c t i o n s of  other  sorts  scope.  second p r i n c i p a l channel  tax  Moreover,  i s l i m i t e d by t h e  to business t r a n s a c t i o n s ,  outside  may o b t a i n  the  the  interpretation  the of  through  which the Canadian  c o l l e c t i o n of  Interpretation  public generally, s e c t i o n s of  the  Bulletins  and w h i c h  law which  citizen  contains  it  162 administers.  If  properly  understood  and a p p l i e d ,  c a n be r e l i e d upon i n v i r t u a l l y  every  which  become o u t d a t e d  they  decision,  cannot  a r e when t h e y  a change i n the  case.  The  law o r a change i n the  these B u l l e t i n s  rare circumstances i n by r e a s o n o f Department's  a court  -  interpretation will in  the  law.  be a p p l i e d f r o m t h e  the  the  of  law,  law,  issued,  or,  from but  correction  the  the  where  If  a c h a n g e does  i s a change  d a t e when  it  date  of  not  favour  the c o u r t  and due t o  i s made p u b l i c .  t h i s would l e a d to the  releases.  an o v e r s i g h t  may c o v e r a s e t o f  right  to  d e c i s i o n or  However,  or  interpretation  the  law,  are  interim issue  are not c o r r e c t e d .  the  of  of  Bulletins occasionally  unreasonable  apply  it  change  Revised B u l l e t i n s  f a c t s w h i c h i t was n e v e r  contrived  the t a x p a y e r ,  i n the Department's  i n p u b l i s h i n g them has l e d t o  and s p e c i a l  Department r e s e r v e s  -  effective  it  delay  sheets  become o b s o l e t e Bulletin  when  48  Again,  intended  results,  even  if  to  a  cover;  the  contrary  to  i s that  of  the  Bulletin. The making  final  an i n f o r m a l  p r o c e d u r e was  option  open  approach  to  introduced,  to  to t a x p a y e r s  discussions  of  at  Canadian  i t was e x p r e s s l y or  When t h e A d v a n c e  stated  that  simple matters  district offices,  proposed  taxpayer  the Department.  a d v i c e and a s s i s t a n c e on r o u t i n e given  the  t r a n s a c t i o n s of  and t h a t  Ruling  over-the-counter  would continue  limited  to  be  informal  a more c o m p l i c a t e d n a t u r e  might  164 take  place at  expressions  d i s t r i c t o f f i c e s o r a t Head O f f i c e .  of  opinion  a r i s i n g out  of  However,  such d i s c u s s i o n s or exchanges  of  165 correspondence Of  course,  are not  s i n c e the  transactions  of  Taxation citizen  Advance  by t h e D e p a r t m e n t as  Ruling  a business nature,  t r a n s a c t i o n s must o f The  treated  procedure information  n e c e s s i t y be o b t a i n e d  system of  and o f  the Department.  i s confined concerning  to  proposed  other  informally.  information-provision  r e p r e s e n t s a p r a c t i c a l compromise  binding.  employed  between  By m a k i n g A d v a n c e  the  by Revenue interests  Rulings  Canada of  applicable  the only  -  to  the  p a r t i c u l a r taxpayer  49  t o whom t h e y  potential  consequences of  attach  them a h i g h d e g r e e o f  to  Interpretation  -  e r r o r are m i n i m i s e d , the Department  B u l l e t i n s , which o f f e r  are c a r e f u l l y formulated  high-level  review  in order  However,  high r e l i a b i l i t y to  and s u b j e c t e d b e f o r e  to m i n i m i s e the  the  the i s able  to  r e l i a b i l i t y and s p e c i f i c i t y .  generally,  misleading.  a r e a d d r e s s e d , so t h a t  risk  that  taxpayers publication  t h e y may  r e s t r i c t e d sphere of o p e r a t i o n  of  to  prove  Advance 166  Rulings,  together  the ambit of rely  with  the  inherent  Interpretation  Bulletins,  Nonetheless, substantially Inland  it  will  of  tax  cases,  better  Revenue  consequences  tax  of  known  taxpayer  no f o r m a l  proposed t r a n s a c t i o n s ,  law.  Thus  Inland  Revenue  and a l l  it  i t s view of  has been s t a t e d officers will  taxpayer  which means,  on  i s in t h i s regard i n a  be r e s t r i c t e d t o documents  procedure for  although the  when  family  requested  are a v a i l a b l e . * 6 7  been e x p r e s s e d on t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r  in  t o do  so  certain  documents  arrangements, all  o r on  the  although  the  Conflicting  an a d v a n c e  tax  or a p p l i c a t i o n  that,  a narrow a r e a where  For  r u l i n g on t h e  interpretation  i n Parliament  or  to  binding.  comment on d r a f t  proposed personal  draft  r e g a r d as  the  and  p o s i t i o n than h i s U n i t e d Kingdom c o u n t e r p a r t .  has a d o p t e d  i m p l i c a t i o n s of  compel  approaches -  does n o t  the Canadian  generally express  t h e comment w i l l  have  inevitably  t o a c o n s i d e r a b l e d e g r e e on i n f o r m a l  i n f o r m a t i o n which the Department  the  l i m i t a t i o n s on t h e number  facts  are  views  rulings  procedure  168 similar The  to  Inland  that  of  Revenue  Revenue does  make known g e n e r a l l y  Canada T a x a t i o n  i s s u e Statements  how i n i t s v i e w t h e  s h o u l d be  adopted.  o f P r a c t i c e where  i t wishes  l a w s h o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d  169 applied.  Otherwise,  taxpayers  w i s h i n g to o b t a i n tax  information  or  to  - 50 -  from the press  Inland  Revenue  statements,  forms,  must  rely  and u n a b l e  explanatory upon  such approaches w i l l  find  pamphlets  informal not,  to  of  it  or guidance  approaches.  course,  i n any o f  The  the  notes  issued with  information  be t r e a t e d  Department's  obtained  as b i n d i n g by  tax by  the  Department. In of  fact,  information  generally  than  Taxation. certain  Inland  i s far  more  i s t h e more  Revenue  representative  and s p e c i f i c  information  by e s t a b l i s h i n g f o r m a l  information,  but  departmental  f l e x i b i l i t y with  i s achieved e i t h e r  and r e v i e w e d prove  at the  whom i t  is provided,  misleading.  The  economic,  self-perception course.  Yet  a r e more  l i k e l y to  impress  that  it  to  respect  to  its  generated  w h i c h has l e d the  provide  reliable  measure  of  the  formulated  information  is  risk  a p p l i c a t i o n to  that  the  consequences i f tax  -  Revenue  than  i n the  law.  will  citizen  to  it  prove  does may  i n Canada,  in  departmental  to  steer  o r are b e t t e r f i e l d of  be and  political,  its  a s i t u a t i o n where  need r e l i a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n ,  it  information  perhaps  differences  Inland  than  of  the  to c o n c e i v e of  n e e d upon g o v e r n m e n t ,  sphere  for  the a p p l i c a t i o n of  or f a c t o r s by  Canada  a substantial  i n t h e U n i t e d Kingdom  factor  provision  citizens  designed to  r e l i a b l e and s p e c i f i c  is difficult  Revenue  so as t o m i n i m i s e t h e  powerful  the  practice  needs o f  within  perserve  so as t o m i n i m i s e t h e  perhaps  the  procedures  by r e s t r i c t i n g i t s  i s a c c o r d i n g l y some o t h e r  perhaps  government  to  on m a t t e r s  by e n s u r i n g t h a t  need f o r  assumed t o be no l e s s it  same t i m e  at a high l e v e l ,  m i s l e a d i n g , or  of  r e s p e c t to  s o p h i s t i c a t e d system of  T h a t D e p a r t m e n t has r e s p o n d e d  competence  This  practice with  tax  own  citizens  able law.  to  -  However, illustrates  the  the b r i e f  point  information-provision practical  51  that  a n a l y s i s undertaken  even  employed  compromise between  reliable  information  action.  No s y s t e m ,  -  and o f  by g o v e r n m e n t  the  interests  This  l e a s t because informal  information  to c i t i z e n s  inherently  less  procedures,  can never  rudimentary  s y s t e m s do n o t  reliability. legal  means  which  it  exist  distinguish government of  the  benefit  is two  to  be t r e a t e d issues,  situations  r e l i a b l e by f a r eradicated.  attempt it  the  to  guarantee  remains  to  to  the o u t s e t  i n which  separately,170  criminal as t h e y  that  of  former  being worked  out  l a w and t h e  latter  through  of  that  reliable.  the  more  even a measure  deprive  the  to  of  second i s where  r i s e to very  through  the c r i m i n a l  law.  to  hold  it  the  result  of  some  is  to  situations  different  the machinery  any,  unreliable.  the c i t i z e n  two  if  information  i s where  These  result  formal  Moreover,  first  of  the  any s u c h c o n s i d e r a t i o n  The  a  acquiring  l i k e l y to  are  h o l d government  liability.  give  the  achieve  freedom  t h e c i t i z e n may w i s h t o  him some l o s s ; of  of  n e c e s s a r y to c o n s i d e r w h a t ,  being m i s l e a d i n g i s to  risk  its  which are than  to  in  a l w a y s be c o m p l e t e l y  i t s misleading information.  i n f l i c t upon  s u b j e c t him t o  in retaining  them and w h i c h has s i n c e p r o v e d  important  information or  to  the c i t i z e n  approaches,  to enable c i t i z e n s  has p r o v i d e d It  will  be e n t i r e l y  Accordingly,  merely  s o p h i s t i c a t e d , guarantees  provided  in  attempt  of  government  information i s not  section  t h e more s o p h i s t i c a t e d s y s t e m s  the  however  in this  of  will  legal the  civil  -  52 -  FOOTNOTES  1.  Cherry, 170.  2.  I b i d . , p . 244; c f . H o r t o n , F.W. and M a r c h a n d , D . A . (eds.), I n f o r m a t i o n Management i n P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ( A r l i n g t o n , Information Resources P r e s s , 1982), p. 104.  3.  Demsetz, H . , I n f o r m a t i o n and E f f i c i e n c y : Another V i e w p o i n t (1969) 12 J . Law & E c . 1 , 9 ; M a c k a a y , E . , E c o n o m i c s o f I n f o r m a t i o n a n d Law ( M o n t r e a l , Groupe de R e c h e r c h e en C o n s o m m a t i o n , 1 9 8 0 ) , p . 1 8 7 .  4.  Mackaay,  5.  Or t o l i m i t t h e p o t e n t i a l c i t . note 3 , p. 189.  6.  Mackaay,  o p . c i t . note 3 , p. 188.  7.  Demsetz,  o p . c i t . note 3 , p . 9 .  8.  C f . C o m m i s s i o n on F e d e r a l P a p e r w o r k , I n f o r m a t i o n R e s o u r c e s Management ( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . , U . S . G o v t . P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1 9 7 7 ) , 445; Horton and Marchand ( e d s . ) , o p . c i t . note 2 , p p . 3 0 - 3 1 .  9. 10.  Mackaay,  C ,  On Human C o m m u n i c a t i o n  o p . c i t . note  ( 2 n d e d . ; MIT P r e s s ,  1966),  p.  3 , p . 190 f f . consequences of the r i s k :  o p . c i t . note 3 , p.  Mackaay, o p .  p.  115.  M o r s s , E . R . a n d R i c h , R . F . , G o v e r n m e n t I n f o r m a t i o n Management ( B o u l d e r C o l o r a d o , Westview P r e s s , 1 9 8 0 ) , pp. 4 9 , 189; Mackaay, c i t . note 3 , p . 116.  op.  11.  C f . M u t u a l L i f e a n d C i t i z e n s ' A s s u r a n c e C o . L t d . v . J E v a t t ( 1 9 6 8 ) 122 C . L . R . 5 5 6 , a t 572 p e r B a r w i c k , C . J . ; S h a d d o c k ( L ) a n d A s s o c i a t e s P t y . L t d . v . P a r r a m a t t a C i t y C o u n c i l ( 1 9 8 1 ) 36 A . L . R . 3 8 5 , a t 3 9 0 - 9 1 per G i b b s , C . J .  12.  A c c o r d i n g l y " i n f o r m a t i o n " as used h e r e a f t e r e m b r a c e b o t h i n f o r m a t i o n and a d v i c e .  13.  T h e r e i s no a t t e m p t i n t h i s t h e s i s t o a d d r e s s t h e p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e s g e n e r a t e d by r e l i a n c e upon j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n s w h i c h a r e l a t e r o v e r t u r n e d , o v e r r u l e d o r s u p p l a n t e d by l e g i s l a t i o n .  14.  See i n f r a ,  15.  Rose, Ltd.,  16.  C a n a d i a n Tax F o u n d a t i o n , C . T . F . , 1 9 8 4 ) , p. 7 2 .  s h o u l d be t a k e n  to  section 4(a).  R., Understanding 1984), p. 14.  B i g Government  The N a t i o n a l  (London,  Finances  Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s  1983-84  (Toronto;  - 53 17.  U n c e r t a i n t i e s as t o t h e s t a t e o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e l a w p r e s e n t a hybrid case. In r e l a t i o n t o l a w s e n a c t e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , s u c h u n c e r t a i n t i e s a r e s t r i c t l y s p e a k i n g g e n e r a t e d by t h a t b o d y , and n o t by t h e e x e c u t i v e ; h o w e v e r , t h e e x e c u t i v e p r o v i d e s l a r g e q u a n t i t i e s of l e g a l i n f o r m a t i o n to c i t i z e n s , which i n f o r m a t i o n i s g e n e r a l l y conclusive unless challenged i n legal proceedings.  18.  Report o f t h e S t a n d i n g Senate Committee I n f o r m a t i o n Canada ( O t t a w a , I n f o r m a t i o n  19.  See i n f r a ,  20.  T h i s assumes t h a t t h e a d v e r s e c o n s e q u e n c e s f l o w d i r e c t l y f r o m t h e i n a d e q u a c y o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n ; i f they f l o w r a t h e r from a government d e c i s i o n made a f t e r and a s a r e s u l t o f t h e d i s c o v e r y o f t h a t i n a c c u r a c y , i t may be p r a c t i c a b l e f o r g o v e r n m e n t t o r e l i e v e t h e c i t i z e n o f them s i m p l y by r e v e r s i n g t h e d e c i s i o n .  21.  A g a i n , t h i s assumes t h a t t h e a d v e r s e c o n s e q u e n c e s f l o w d i r e c t l y the i n a c c u r a c y of the h e a l t h w a r n i n g . See s u p r a , note 2 0 .  22.  M i n i s t r y o f Consumer and C o r p o r a t e 269 , s . 4 ( d ) .  23.  Mining Regulation A c t , R.S.B.C.  24.  Economic C o u n c i l o f Canada A c t , R . S . C . ll(l)(a)(vi).  25.  Ibid.,  26.  Labour Code,  27.  A Crown c o r p o r a t i o n : 165, s . 1 6 ( 1 ) , ( 2 ) .  28.  Ibid.,  s.  29.  Ibid.,  ss. 20(l)(f),  30.  C f . I n t e r p r e t a t i o n A c t , R . S . C . 1970, c . 1-23, s . 27(2); Interpretation Act,~RTS.B.C. 1979, c . 209, s . 16(2); V i c Restaurants L t d . v . C i t y o f M o n t r e a l ( 1 9 5 9 ) 17 D . L . R . ( 2 d ) 8 1 , a t 93 p e r L o c k e T 7 T S . C . C ) ; R. v . P r i d e C l e a n e r s a n d D y e r s L t d . ( 1 9 6 5 ) 4 9 ~ T ) . L . R . ( 2 d ) 752 ( B . C 3 . C . ) ~  31.  K n i g h t , F . H . , R i s k , U n c e r t a i n t y and P r o f i t ( U n i v e r s i t y of C h i c a g o P r e s s , 1 9 7 1 ) , p. 2 6 1 , quoted i n Mackaay, o p . c i t . note 3 , p. 121. For i n f o r m a t i o n as a c a p i t a l a s s e t , see M a c k a a y , o p . c i t . n o t e 3 ,  s.  section  on N a t i o n a l F i n a n c e on Canada, 1974), p. 8 .  7.  Affairs  Act, R.S.B.C.  from  1979, c .  1979, c . 2 6 5 , s . 15. 1970, c . E - l , s .  21(2). R.S.C.  1970, c . L - l , s . Heritage  89(2).  Conservation  Act, R.S.B.C.  1979, c .  20(l)(c). 18.  -  54 -  C h . 7 ; f o r i n f o r m a t i o n a s a c u r r e n c y , s e e B r a u n s t e i n , Y a l e M . , The F u n c t i o n i n g o f I n f o r m a t i o n Markets i n Yurow, Jane H. ( p r o j e c t d i r e c t o r ) , Issues i n Information P o l i c y (Washington, D . C . , U.S. D e p a r t m e n t o f Commerce N a t i o n a l T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s a n d I n f o r m a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , 1981), p. 6 5 . 32.  Cf. op.  33.  Braunstein,  34.  B r a u n s t e i n , Y a l e H. i n Y u r o w , c i t . note 3 , pp. 121-23. Y a l e H.  i n Yurow,  wp.  c i t . note 31,  o p . c i t . note 31,  p. 58;  Mackaay,  p. 58.  Ibid.  35.  The f o l l o w i n g d e s c r i p t i o n owes a c o n s i d e r a b l e d e b t c i t . note 3 , c h . 2 .  to Mackaay,  op.  36.  Ibid.,  p.  37.  Ibid.,  p. 20.  38.  B e c k e r , G . S . , The E c o n o m i c A p p r o a c h t o Human B e h a v i o u r (University of Chicago P r e s s , 1 9 7 6 ) , p. 8 , c i t e d i n Mackaay, o p . c i t . note 3 , p. 20.  39.  Supra,  section 4(b).  40.  Infra,  section 5.  41.  Coase, 357.  R.H.,  42.  C p . t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f a l i g h t h o u s e by Ambrose B i e r c e , q u o t e d by C o a s e , ( o p . c i t . n o t e 4 1 , p . 3 7 6 ) a s "A t a l l b u i l d i n g on t h e s e a s h o r e i n w h i c h t h e g o v e r n m e n t m a i n t a i n s a lamp and t h e f r i e n d a politician."  18.  The L i g h t h o u s e  i n Economics  (1974)  Law & E c .  C f . Coase, o p . c i t . note 4 1 , p p . 357-60, S i d g w i c k , P i g o u and Samuel s o n .  44.  An A c t f o r v e s t i n g L i g h t h o u s e s , L i g h t s a n d S e a M a r k s on t h e C o a s t s o f E n g l a n d i n t h e C o r p o r a t i o n o f T r i n i t y House o f D e p t f o r d S t r o n d , 6 & 7 W i l l . 4 , c . 79.  45.  Cf.  46.  C f . B a r r y , J . F . , The Economics o f O u t s i d e ( 1 9 8 1 ) 129 U . o f P e n n s . L . R . 1 3 0 7 , 1 3 2 7 .  47.  Cf.  Demsetz,  v.  Corporation  of T r i n i t y  o p . c i t . note 2 ,  pp. 9,  House  10.  the works  ( 1 8 8 6 ) 17  Information  of  of  43.  Gilbert  citing  17 J .  Q.B.D.  Mill,  795.  and R u l e 1 0 b - 5  -  55  -  48.  Michelman, F.I. and S a n d a l o w , T . , P a u l , West P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1 9 7 0 ) ,  49.  Makuch, S . M . , M u n i c i p a l Immunity from L i a b i l i t y i n N e g l i g e n c e i n S t e e l , F . M . and R o d g e r s - M a g n e t , S . ( e d s . ) , I s s u e s i n T o r t Law ( T o r o n t o , The C a r s w e l l Company L i m i t e d , 1 9 8 3 ) , p . 2 3 2 .  50.  Michelman and S a n d a l o w , ^ p .  51.  P a p a n d r e o u , A . G . , P a t e r n a l i s t i c C a p i t a l i s m (Copp C l a r k C o . , 1 9 7 2 ) , p. 19, quoted i n Mackaay, op. c i t . note 3 , Mackaay n o t e s t h a t Papandreou d i s s o c i a " f e s h i m s e l f from position.  52.  Mackaay,  53.  Ibid.,  54.  Makuch, op.  55.  Ibid.,  p.  232.  56.  Ibid.,  p.  233.  57.  Cf. D i v e r s i f i e d Holdings [ 1 9 8 3 J 23 C . C . L . T . 1 5 6 .  58.  Cf. Toronto's controversy:  59.  Mackuch, op.  60.  Ibid.,  p.  61.  Ibid.,  pp.  62.  See f u r t h e r  infra,  63.  Makuch, op.  cit.  64.  op.  pp.  cit.  cit.  Government p. 35.  note 48,  note 3 ,  pp.  26-27.  note 49,  pp.  232,  pp.  i n Urban Areas  35,  (St.  36. Publishing p. 2 5 . that  29-31. cit.  Ltd.  v.  233.  Queen I n R i g h t  of  B r i t i s h Columbia  p r o j e c t e d domed s t a d i u m , w h i c h h a s g e n e r a t e d The G l o b e a n d M a i l , J a n u a r y 1 8 t h 1 9 8 5 . cit.  note 4 9 ,  p.  some  233.  232. 233-39. Part  note 49,  IV. p.  235.  Ibid.  65.  Fuller, L.L., W i s c o n s i n L.  66.  Makuch,  67.  Infra,  op. Part  C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g and t h e A r b i t r a t o r Rev. 3 , 19. cit. IV.  note 4 9 ,  p.  235.  [1963]  -  56  -  68.  The a r g u m e n t s made i n t h i s and i n t h e f o l l o w i n g two p a r a g r a p h s a r e elaborated i n f r a , Part II. For c o n s i d e r a t i o n of m i s l e a d i n g government i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e c o n t e x t of the c r i m i n a l l a w , see infra, Part III.  69.  Infra,  70.  A s s o c i a t e d P r o v i n c i a l P i c t u r e Houses L t d . v . Wednesbury C o r p o r a t i o n L1948J 1 K . B . 2 2 3 ; L1947J 2 A l l E . R . 6 8 0 ; C o u n c i l o f C i v i l S e r v i c e Unions v . M i n i s t e r f o r the C i v i l S e r v i c e [1984] 3 A l l E.R. 935 (H.L.).  71.  De S m i t h , S . A . , J u d i c i a l R e v i e w o f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e A c t i o n L o n d o n , S t e v e n s & Sons L i m i t e d , 1 9 8 0 ) , p p . 3 3 9 - 4 1 .  72.  C p . R. v . F l i n t s h i r e C o u n t y C o u n c i l C o u n t y L i c e n s i n g ( S t a g e P l a y s ) C o m m i t t e e , e x p . B a r r e t t L 1 9 5 7 J 1 Q . B . 350 ( C . A . ) , d i s c u s s e d i n Wade, H . W . R . , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law ( 5 t h e d . ; O x f o r d , C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1982), pp. 382, 383.  73.  G o u r i e t v . Union of P o s t O f f i c e Workers [1978] A . C . L1971J 3 A l l E.R. 7 0 , at 119-20 per L o r d F r a s e r .  74.  Makuch, op.  75.  Gouriet v . Union of Post O f f i c e per Lord W i l b e r f o r c e .  76.  Infra,  77.  A l t e r n a t i v e l y , g o v e r n m e n t may u s e t h e p r i v a t e s e c t o r , and t h e m e d i a , t o d i s s e m i n a t e i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h i t has i t s e l f  78.  Cf. Breyer, S . , Regulation 1 9 8 2 ) , p . 26 f f .  79.  Cf. P r i e s t , Margot, P r o v i s i o n of Information i n the Context of R e g u l a t i o n (Economic C o u n c i l of Canada, T e c h n i c a l Report No. 2 2 , 1 9 8 2 ) , p p . 1 2 , 1 6 , c i t i n g CRTC p o l i c y o f d i s c l o s i n g t h e f i n a n c i a l statements of c a b l e companies.  80.  See i n f r a ,  81.  S p e n c e r B o w e r , G . , a n d T u r n e r , S i r A . K . , The Law R e l a t i n g t o E s t o p p e l by R e p r e s e n t a t i o n ( 3 r d e d . ; L o n d o n , B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1 9 7 7 ) , pp. 4 6 , 47.  82.  C f . e . g . Brown v . H e a t h c o t e C o u n t y C o u n c i l [ 1 9 8 2 ] 2 N . Z . L . R . 5 8 4 ; M i n i s t e r A d m i n i s t e r i n g t h e E n v i r o n m e n t a l P l a n n i n g and Assessment A c t 1979 v . San S e b a s t i a n P t y . L t d . L 1 9 8 3 J 2 N . S . W . L . R . 268 TTT7S\W.C7AT]~:  83.  C f . e . g . G a d u t s i s v . M i l n e [1973] 2 O.R. L t d . v . Town o f B e r w i c k ( 1 9 7 8 ) 82 D . L . R .  Part  Part  II.  cit.  note 4 9 ,  p.  (4th  435,  at  ed.;  524;  230. Workers,  supra note 73,  at 482,  484  II.  subs.  and I t s  Reform  typically produced.  (Harvard University  Press,  (d).  503; (3d)  H . L . & M. S h o p p e r s Zi\ N o r t h r u p , Graham  -  57  -  and Graham R e a l t y L t d . v . C i t y o f F r e d e r i c t o n ( 1 9 8 0 ) 27 N . B . R . ( 2 d ) 373; H u l l v . C a n t e r b u r y M u n i c i p a l C o u n c i l [1974] 1 N . S . W . L . R . 300; G . J . K"nTght H o l d i n g s P t y . L t d . v . w a r r i r i g a h S h i r e C o u n c i l [ 1 9 7 5 ] 2 N . S . W . L . R . 796; P o r t Underwood F o r e s t s L t d . v . M a r l b o r o u g h C o u n t y Council [1982] 1 N . Z . L . R . 343; Coats Patons ( R e t a i l ) L t d . v. B i r m i n g h a m C o r p o r a t i o n ( 1 9 7 1 ) b9 L . G . R . 3 5 6 . 84.  Infra,  Parts  II,  IV.  85.  Infra,  Part  IV.  86.  Infra,  Part  II.  87.  C p . R. v . P u b ! i c o v e r [ 1 9 4 0 ] 4 D . L . R . 43 ( d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e f u s a l o f reme"dy); and c f . R ~ v . P a d d i n g t o n V a l u a t i o n O f f i c e r , ex p . Peachey P r o p e r t y C o r p o r a t i o n L t d . L 1 9 6 6 J 1 Q . B . 3 8 0 , a t 418 p e r D a n c k w e r t s L.J.; a t 419 p e r S a l m o n L.J.  88.  F o r e x a m p l e , i t may be a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e w i d e s p r e a d d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f c e r t a i n s o r t s o f i n f o r m a t i o n t o be a c h i e v e d t h r o u g h u s e o f t e l e v i s i o n or r a d i o , a l t h o u g h the p u b l i c a t i o n of such i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l i n e v i t a b l y be t r a n s i t o r y . I t s h o u l d a l s o be b o r n e i n m i n d t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h i s c o m m u n i c a t e d o r a l l y o r v i s u a l l y may t a k e a permanent p u b l i s h e d form - e . g . a t a p e , or a f i l m - even i f i t s a c t u a l p u b l i c a t i o n i s momentary.  89.  Of c o u r s e , t h e a d v i c e may a t r e m a i n so t h e r e a f t e r .  90.  Heckler v. 104 S . C t .  91.  I n f o r m a t i o n communicated o r a l l y form: see supra note 8 9 .  92.  Davis v. Regional 1 (Ont. H.Ct.).  93.  S h a d d o c k ( L ) and A s s o c i a t e s P t y . ( 1 9 8 1 ) 36 A . L . R . 3 8 5 .  94.  C f . e . g . W i n d s o r M o t o r s L t d . v . D i s t r i c t o f P o w e l l R i v e r (1969) 4 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 1 5 5 ; G a d u t s i s ~ ~ v . Mi 1 n e , s u p r a n o t e 8 3 ; J u n g v . D i s t r i c t o f B u r n a b y ( 1 9 7 8 ) 92 D . L . R . ( 3 d ) 5 9 2 ; S t a t e o f S o u t h A u s t r a l i a v. J o h n s o n ( 1 9 8 2 ) 42 A . L . R . 1 6 1 ; R.A. & T . J . C a r l 1 L t d . v . B e r r y L1981J 2 N . Z . L . R . 76; B i v o n e v . C i t y o f S a l i s b u r y (198TT 50 L . G . R . A . 9 4 .  95.  Shaddock (L) and A s s o c i a t e s P t y . L t d . v . P a r r a m a t t a s u p r a n o t e 9 3 , i n p a r t i c u l a r a t 409 p e r Murphy J .  96.  Town o f  the o u t s e t  be w h o l l y  correct,  Community H e a l t h S e r v i c e s o f C r a w f o r d C t y . 2 2 1 8 , a t 2227 ( U . S . S . Ct.).  t h e Pas v .  o r v i s u a l l y may a l s o t a k e  M u n i c i p a l i t y of  Porky  Inc.  Haldimand-Norfolk  Ltd.  v.  Packers [1977]  Parramatta  1 S.C.R.  51  City  (1984)  permanent  (1980)  City  and  12  R.P.R.  Council  Council,  (S.C.C).  -  58 -  97.  Ibid.,  98.  Compare, f o r e x a m p l e , Davis v . R e g i o n a l M u n i c i p a l i t y o f H a l d i m a n d - N o r f o l k , s u p r a n o t e 9 2 , and S h a d d o c k ( L ) a n d A s s o c i a t e s P t y . L t d . v . P a r r a m a t t a C i t y C o u n c i l , s u p r a n o t e 9 3 , w i t h S t a t e "of South A u s t r a l i a v . Johnson and R . A ~ & T . J . C a r l ! L t d . v . B e r r y , supra note 9 4 .  99.  S p e n c e r Bower a n d T u r n e r , ^ p . c i t . n o t e 8 1 , p p . 9 2 , 9 7 ; H e c k l e r v . Community H e a l t h S e r v i c e s o f C r a w f o r d C t y . , I n c . , s u p r a n o t e 9 0 .  100.  R o g e r s , W . V . H . , W i n f i e l d a n d J o l o w i c z on T o r t ( 1 2 t h e d . ; L o n d o n , S w e e t & M a x w e l l , 1 9 8 4 ) , p . 2 8 6 ; F l e m i n g J . G . , Law o f T o r t ( 6 t h e d . ; S y d n e y , T h e Law Book Company L i m i t e d , 1 9 8 3 ) , p . 6 1 1 ; J . E . B . F a s t e n e r s L t d . v . M a r k s , B l o o m & C o . [ 1 9 8 1 ] 3 A l l E . R . 2 8 9 , a t 297 per Woolf J .  101.  R^ v . F l e m m i n g ( 1 9 8 1 ) 43 N . S . R . ( 2 d ) 2 4 9 ; R^ v . W.W.R. 197; and see f u r t h e r i n f r a , P a r t I I I .  102.  Supra.  103.  C f . Maritime E l e c t r i c Co. L t d . v . General D a i r i e s L t d . [1935] S . C . R . 5 1 9 ; L 1 9 3 5 J 4 D . L . R . 196 ( S . C . C ) , p o i n t e x p r e s s l y l e f t u n d e c i d e d by P r i v y C o u n c i l [1937] A . C . 610; [1937] 1 W.W.R. 591; T a r a n a k i E l e c t r i c - P o w e r B o a r d v . P r o p r i e t o r s o f P u k e t a p u 3A B l o c k I n c o r p o r a t e d L 1 9 5 8 J ~ N . Z . L . R . 297 ( N . Z . S . C . , N o r t h J . ) .  104.  C f . e . g . Re J a u n c e y  105.  T a r a n a k i E l e c t r i c - P o w e r B o a r d v . P r o p r i e t o r s o f P u k e t a p u 3A B l o c k Incorporated, supra note 103, a t 308.  106.  S p e n c e r Bower a n d T u r n e r , (1848) 2 E x c h . 6 5 4 .  o p . c i t . note 8 1 , p . 97;  107.  See t h e a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d  supra note 100.  108.  R.  109.  H o l m e s , O . W . , T h e Common Law ( B o s t o n , 1881), p. 108.  110.  Infra,  111.  T h i s e v i d e n t i a l d i f f i c u l t y e x i s t s whether the proceedings concerned a r e c i v i l o r c r i m i n a l , b u t i t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t w h e r e , i n a c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n , the defendant r a i s e s the defence of o f f i c i a l l y i n d u c e d e r r o r o f l a w , i t s h o u l d be s u f f i c i e n t f o r h i m w h e r e t h e o f f e n c e i s one r e q u i r i n g p r o o f o f mens r e a t o r a i s e a r e a s o n a b l e  v.  at 63, 68.  Carl  Part  Gruber,  C a r l Gruber [1982] 1  [1980] Q.R. 3 3 5 .  supra note 101,  Freeman v .  a t 243 p e r S t u a r t T e r r . Little,  Cooke  Ct.  J.  Brown a n d C o m p a n y ,  III.  -  59 -  doubt i n the mind of the t r i e r of f a c t ; b u t c p . supra note 101. See f u r t h e r i n f r a , P a r t III.  v.  Carl  Gruber,  112.  C f . e . g . Re McDonogh ( 1 9 7 8 ) 7 A . R . 412 ( e s t o p p e l ) ; B e d f o r d i a P l a n t L t d . v . S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e f o r t h e E n v i r o n m e n t [ 1 9 8 2 ] J . P . L . 122 ( e s t o p p e l ) ; Western F i s h P r o d u c t s L t d . v . Penwith D i s t r i c t Council [ 1 9 8 1 ] 2 A l l E . R . 204 ( e s t o p p e l ) ; and t h e a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d s u p r a " notes 8 2 , 8 3 .  113.  Cf.  114.  C f . B r a d l e y , A . W . , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e J u s t i c e and t h e B i n d i n g E f f e c t O f f i c i a l A c t s ( 1 9 8 1 ) 34 C . L . P . 1 , 1 0 .  115.  Cf.  116.  C f . A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l o f Hong Kong v . [1983J 2 A l l E.R. 346 ( P . C . ) .  117.  C f . R. v . S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e [ 1 9 8 5 7 1 A l l E . R . 40 ( C . A . ) .  118.  J o r d e n v . Money ( 1 8 5 4 ) 5 H . L . C a s . 185, a t 214-216 per Lord cranworth, L.C.; L o u i s i a n a v . F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank o f New O r l e a n s ( 1 8 7 3 ) L . R . 6 H . L . 3 5 2 , a t 360 p e r L o r d S e l b o r n e , L . C . ; Nippon Menkwa K a b u s h i k i K a i s h a v . D a w s o n ' s Bank L t d . ( 1 9 3 5 ) 51 LI . L. R e p . 1 4 7 , a t 151 p e r L o r d R u s s e l l o f K i l l o w e n .  119.  E d g i n g t o n v . F i t z m a u r i c e ( 1 8 8 5 ) 29 C h . D. 4 5 9 , a t 483 £ e r Bowen L.J.; Angus v . C I i f f o r d ~ [ 1 8 9 1 ] 2 C h . 4 4 9 , a t 470 p e r Bowen L . J .  120.  S p e n c e r Bower a n d T u r n e r , £p_. c i t .  121.  [1947] K . B .  122.  C f . e . g . S o h i o P e t r o l e u m C o . v . Weyburn S e c u r i t y C o . L t d . ( 1 9 7 0 ) 74 W . W . R . 626 ( S . C . C ) ; J o h n B u r r o w s L t d . v . S u b s u r f a c e S u r v e y s L t d . ( 1 9 6 8 ) S . C . R . 607 ( S . C . C ) ; G r e a t P l a f n s Development C o . o f Canada L t d . v . H i d r o g a s L t d . [1982] 1 W.W.R. 1 ( A l t a . C . A . ) .  123.  C f . e . g . Tool Metal M a n u f a c t u r i n g Co. L t d . v . Tungsten E l e c t r i c C o . L t d . [ 1 9 5 5 ] 2 A l l E . R . 657 ( H . L . ) ; Woo'dTiouse A T T . I s r a e l C o c o a L t d . 37A~7 v . N i g e r i a n P r o d u c e M a r k e t i n g C o . L t d . L1972J 2 A l l E . R . 271  e.g.,  Re J a u n c e y ,  Meates v .  supra note  Attorney-General  104.  [1983] N . Z . L . R .  308  (N.Z.C.A.).  Ng Yuen S h i u [ 1 9 8 3 ] 2 A . C .  f o r t h e Home D e p a r t m e n t ,  note 8 1 ,  p.  ex p .  629;  Khan  33.  130.  nr.). 124.  of  Infra,  Part  II.  125.  Infra,  Part  II.  126.  Fleming, op. 215. ~  cit.  note 100,  p.  5 9 6 ; Combe v .  Combe [ 1 9 5 1 ] 2  K.B.  127.  Meates v .  128.  Infra,  129.  Cf.  130.  Supra,  131.  Ibid.  132.  Supra,  133.  Ibid.  60  Attorney-General  Part  [1983] N . Z . L . R .  308.  IV.  The G l o b e a n d M a i l , section  4(b).  section  4(c).  Mackaay,  Cf.  135.  See f u r t h e r  136.  I n f o r m a t i o n C i r c u l a r 70-6R (December 1 8 t h , amended by a S p e c i a l R e l e a s e o f J u n e 2 3 r d ,  137.  E c k s t e i n , 0 . , P u b l i c F i n a n c e ( 3 r d e d . ; E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s , New J e r s e y , P r e n t i c e - H a l l I n c . , 1 9 7 3 ) , p . 26 f f . ; Pechman, J . A . , F e d e r a l Tax P o l i c y ( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . , The B r o o k i n g s I n s t i t u t i o n , 1 9 6 6 ) , p p . 147-48; M e r c e r , L . J . and M o r g a n , W . D . , The R e l a t i v e E f f i c i e n c y a n d Revenue P o t e n t i a l o f L o c a l U s e r C h a r g e s : The C a l i f o r n i a C a s e ( 1 9 8 3 ) 36 N a t . T a x . J o . 2 0 3 , p p . 2 0 3 - 0 4 ; and s e e L i n d s a y , R . F . , Advance Tax R u l i n g s - A P r a c t i t i o n e r ' s P e r s p e c t i v e ( 1 9 7 3 ) C a n a d i a n Tax Foundation Report of P r o c e e d i n g s , 103, 115.  138.  Brazer, H.E., U s e r C h a r g e s i n an E n v i r o n m e n t o f F i s c a l L i m i t a t i o n ( 1 9 8 3 ) P r o c s . o f N a t . Tax A s s o c . 2 0 0 , 2 0 3 ; G o e t z , C . J . , The O u t l o o k f o r F e e s a n d S e r v i c e C h a r g e s a s a S o u r c e o f R e v e n u e f o r " S t a t e and Local Government, i n Musgrave, R.A. ( e d . ) , Broad Based Taxes ( B a l t i m o r e , The J o h n H o p k i n s U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 7 3 ) , p p . 1 2 5 - 2 6 .  139.  C f . Asimow, M . , A d v i c e t o the P u b l i c from F e d e r a l A g e n c i e s (New Y o r k , M a t t h e w B e n d e r , 1 9 7 3 ) , § 7 . 0 6 ,  140.  Information C i r c u l a r 70-6R, supra note 136, p a r a . 5; c f . U.S. B u r e a u o f t h e B u d g e t (now O f f i c e o f Management and B u d g e t ) C i r c u l a r A-25 (September 2 3 r d , 1959); Asimow, o p . c i t . note 139, § 7 . 0 3 [ 4 ] , p. 129.  141.  Cf.  142.  Information  143.  Cf.  144.  Supra,  supra,  cit.  infra,  op.  note 3 ,  section  cit.  section  section  3.  6(c).  166.  7.  note 139,  C i r c u l a r 70-6R,  p.  1984.  134.  Asimow,  op.  November 1 0 t h ,  §7.07,  pp.  supra note 136,  1978), 1980.  para. 5,  Administrative p. 132.  132-33. para.  as  4.  see s u p r a n o t e  61  -  145.  But  20.  146.  For a survey of government p r a c t i c e Asimow, o p . c i t . note 139.  147.  Information  148.  Ibid.,  paras.  6,  149.  Ibid.,  para.  16.  150.  Ibid.,  para.  151.  C f . The 1984T:  152.  Information  153.  Ibid.,  para.  9.  154.  Ibid.,  para.  10.  155.  Ibid.,  para.  11.  156.  Ibid.,  para.  12.  157.  Ibid.,  para.  13.  158.  B e i t h , R . M . A d v a n c e R u l i n g s : A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and P r i n c i p l e s C a n a d i a n Tax F o u n d a t i o n R e p o r t o f P r o c e e d i n g s , 4 5 6 , 4 b / .  159.  Ibid. In 1 9 8 3 , t h e I n t e r n a l Revenue S e r v i c e r e c e i v e d 3 5 , 0 0 0 r e q u e s t s f o r p r i v a t e l e t t e r r u l i n g s : 1983 A n n u a l R e p o r t o f t h e Commissioner of I n t e r n a l Revenue.  160.  B e i t h , o p . c i t . n o t e 1 5 8 , p . 4 5 7 ; and c f . R o g o v i n , M . , The F o u r R ' s : R e g u l a t i o n , R u l i n g s , R e l i a n c e a n d R e t r o a c t i v i t y ( 1 9 6 5 ) 43 T a x e s 7 5 6 , 767; P o r t n e y , G . G . , L e t t e r R u l i n g s : An E n d a n g e r e d S p e c i e s ? ( 1 9 8 2 / 8 3 ) Tax L a w y e r 7 5 1 , 754.  161.  C f . The C a n a d i a n T a x p a y e r , V o l . V I , 1984); Lindsay, R . F . , op. c i t . note  162.  Information  163.  D a v i d s o n , D . L . H . , A d v a n c e R u l i n g s and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n B u l l e t i n s ( 1 9 8 3 ) C a n a d i a n Tax F o u n d a t i o n R e p o r t o f P r o c e e d i n g s , 7 9 5 , 798.  164.  Information  165.  Ibid.,  C i r c u l a r 70-6R,  5,  supra note  as amended  by a S p e c i a l  C i r c u l a r 70-6R,  C i r c u l a r 70-1  VI,  supra  No.  note  para.  see  3.  Release of June 2 3 r d , 24,  136,  No. 2 2 , 137.  (August 25th,  C i r c u l a r 70-6R, 24.  136,  States,  14.  Canadian Taxpayer, V o l .  para.  i n the United  supra note  p.  para.  p.  1970),  136,  193  181  (Dec.  18th,  8.  (Nov.  para.  para.  1980.  23.  (1982)  20th,  3.  -  62 -  166.  There  a r e i n t h e o r d e r o f 500 p u b l i s h e d I n t e r p r e t a t i o n  167.  Adjournment Debate, O f f i c i a l R e p o r t , J u l y q u o t e d i n Gammie, M . , "Revenue P r a c t i c e " : Treatment? (1980) B . T . R . 3 0 4 , 3 0 5 - 0 6 .  168.  C f . Gammie, o p . c i t . n o t e 1 6 7 ; (1970) B . T . R . 2 8 1 .  169.  Cf.  170.  The f o r m e r  Wheatcroft,  I n l a n d Revenue P r e s s R e l e a s e , J u l y i n Part  II,  the l a t t e r  2 5 t h , 1972, c o l . 1787, A S u i t a b l e Case f o r  G.S.A.,  18th 1978.  i n Part  Bulletins.  III.  Advance  Rulings  - 63 -  PART I I  HOLDING GOVERNMENT BOUND: MISLEADING GOVERNMENT INFORMATION AND DEPRIVATION OF BENEFIT OR INFLICTION OF LOSS  -  64 -  A.  ESTOPPEL BY REPRESENTATION  1.  Introduction: The  The D o c t r i n e  legal  tool  most  Defined often  employed  by c i t i z e n s  attempting  to  h o l d government to i t s i n f o r m a t i o n  has h i s t o r i c a l l y been t h e d o c t r i n e  estoppel  doctrine -  by r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . 1  convenience,  This  i f not f o r a c c u r a c y ,  regarded  as a r u l e o f e v i d e n c e  operates  to prevent  some f a c t to  essential  fail ."4  than  of s u b s t a n t i v e  t o l i t i g a t i o n from case.  establish  that the c i t i z e n ' s stated  legal  "Its sole o f f i c e  i t s e a r l i e r information  essential  Lord Birkenhead  to b e .  tenor  i n MacLaine  v.  of  Gatty;5  such b e l i e f  specifically, (i)  otherwise  the d o c t r i n e designed  to  introducing  estoppel  is  evidence  by s h o w i n g t h a t  it  fact.  o f t h e d o c t r i n e was s u c c i n c t l y s t a t e d by  against B that a different More  succeed,  a r e as t h e  In s u c h c a s e s ,  "Where A has by h i s w o r d s  conduct j u s t i f i e d B i n b e l i e v i n g that a c e r t a i n and B h a s a c t e d upon  of  is either  otherwise  or l i a b i l i t i e s  government from  p r o c e e d e d on t h e b a s i s o f an e r r o r The  rights  o r i n d i c a t e d them  contradict  It  the existence  a cause of a c t i o n or a defence  i n an a t t e m p t t o p r e v e n t  which w i l l  time."  law.3  o u t o f t h e way o f a c a s e w h i c h m i g h t  used t o s u p p o r t  information  affirm  denying  to f o r  properly  i n t h e f i e l d of m i s l e a d i n g government i n f o r m a t i o n ,  commonly  raised  rather  i n t h e way o f a c a s e w h i c h m i g h t  an i m p e d i m e n t  referred  s i m p l y as e s t o p p e l 2 _ i s  to h i s opponent's  p l a c e an o b s t a c l e  o r t o remove  is  one p a r t y  hereafter  of  state  to h i s p r e j u d i c e , state  the elements  of f a c t s  of f a c t s  or  exists,  A i s not p e r m i t t e d  existed  a t t h e same  of estoppel a r e :  a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f f a c t - i n w o r d s o r by a c t s o r c o n d u c t - made by one p e r s o n ( t h e r e p r e s e n t o r ) t o another (the representee) with the a c t u a l o r presumed i n t e n t i o n of i n d u c i n g t h e r e p r e s e n t e e to undertake a course of conduct;  to  -  (ii)  between to  the  d e t r i m e n t to the r e p r e s e n t e e act or o m i s s i o n . 6  these  to  the  It  exist,  substantially  I take  state  of  n o t by  It  indicates  the  fundamental  2.  narrow  focus  objections  only  to  apparent  his  that  estoppel  state  to of the  basis, these of  was made c l e a r by  bear  it  seems t o me o f  two p a r t i e s ,  agree  [but]  by  their that  Lord to  the  the  doctrine  to  do  very  rights  shall  be  conventional  t h i s j u s t i f i c a t i o n in mind,  use o f  another  t o make t h e b a s i s o f  estoppel , which i n turn  "no  between  say s u c h and s u c h t h i n g s  facts,  parties  has  truth  to  that  evidence  former  aim i s t o m a i n t a i n This  proceedings  introduce  upon m y s e l f  two  i s important  to  variance with  the  legal  "When a p e r s o n makes  between  real  f a c t s which the  action."  its  the  be u n a b l e  of  Nicholls8:  a c t upon  essence of j u s t i c e t h a t , regulated,  its  representee.  i n Burkinshaw v.  and y o u may  at  as a r e s u l t  i n subsequent  will  be i m m e d i a t e l y  truth"7;  and t h e  representation,  a r e made o u t  representor  will  absolute  representor  Blackburn  the  fact  representation.  the  elements  parties,  e s t a b l i s h any  relation  -  an a c t o r o m i s s i o n on t h e p a r t o f t h e r e p r e s e n t e e w h i c h t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n was r e a s o n a b l y c a p a b l e o f i n d u c i n g and w h i c h i t a c t u a l l y i n d u c e d ; and  (iii)  If  65  their  as  it  f o r m s one o f  the  h o l d government  to  information.  Estoppel  beginning which  And The  Crown  In  England,  the  of  a dynamic  has been a v a s t  latter  expansion  half of  of  the  l a s t century  government,  i n c r e a s e i n the  number  the  witnessed  principal  and powers  of  feature  statutory  the of  -  public  authorities.  majority  of  government  established law",  nature  of  i t s powers.9  sweeping immunity.  Crown  immunity  Wales v .  Crown,  of  Atkin J .  to estoppel  undermine j u d i c i a l  estoppel  Thus  in Attorney-General  felt  able to  for  that  the  I know ^  say,  general  in pais".12  This  authority  subject of  on t h i s p o i n t  Airways L t d . estoppel  Pensionsl3 that  the  v.  development  Parts  any g e n e r a l  of  has s i n c e  rule,  if  it  indeed there  Crown."  the  as e s t o p p e l  the p r o p o s i t i o n as reached i t s  he t h e n was)  apotheosis  in  Robertson  t h e Crown c a n n o t be bound the judgment  in that u U  t  Thus i n  by t h e c o u r t .  to n o t i c e t h a t  e v e r was s u c h a r u l e ,  there that  by  case  its Laker  conceded  c o n c e s s i o n made i n Gowa  approval  i s important  of  the  c o u l d not bind  been a c k n o w l e d g e d .  and a s i m i l a r  a  to the P r i n c e  Department of T r a d e , 1 5 the A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l  the o u t s e t  cannot b i n d the  e x i s t e n c e of  a d v e r s e comment i n l a t e r c a s e s , 1 4  may b i n d t h e C r o w n ;  "At  (as  idea that  A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l 16 was d i s c u s s e d w i t h saidl7:  for  of  atmosphere  p r o p o s i t i o n so f a r  no a u t h o r i t y  the  centuries  i n response to  estoppel  of  the  acceptance  c r e a t e d an  q u e s t i o n the very  " h a s l o n g been e x p l o d e d . "  h a v e been t h e  in  and e a r l y t w e n t i e t h  the c o n f i d e n t a s s e r t i o n of Denning J .  M i n i s t e r of  early  "fictions  b i n d t h e Crown  able to  the Attorney-General  by d e e d i s c o n c e r n e d .  was  the  as t i m e p a s s e d , c h a n g e d p e r c e p t i o n s o f  from e s t o p p e l .  "There i s authority  applied  i n e f f e c t i v e to  nineteenth  courts f e l t  It  absolutist theories that  began t o  The  i n the Crown.  encroachments,10 which together  Collom11,  submission  v.  But  and r o l e o f m o n a r c h y  which E n g l i s h  with  powers were v e s t e d  a g a i n s t a background of  witnessed several in  -  t h i s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e x p l o s i o n , by f a r  i n c l u d i n g e s t o p p e l , were  exercise  this  Before  66  Lloyd i s no  that  v. L.J. longer  an e s t o p p e l  - 67 -  On A long  this  i s s u e , E n g l a n d and C a n a d a  s u c c e s s i o n of  principle Isolated  that estoppels, dicta  But  immunity  estoppels,  usually  it  authority  either  courts22-  i  withstand  a twentieth  significance. compared w i t h  its  the  great  the  i n the  the  the  statutory  duties. of  The  of  by  of  the  the  p r i n c i p l e of  to j u s t i f y tend  to  it.  rely  Crown  The for  cases their  b a l d a s s e r t i o n s of  p r i n c i p l e advanced  of  Canadian  deceptive. powers  of  The  is  between  earlier  which  to  courts  might  of  overwhelming position  reason  i n the  lies  i n both  comparatively  fact  jurisdictions small  g o v e r n m e n t and c i t i z e n s .  or  courts  prevent the  i n both  estoppel  performance  the w i l l i n g n e s s of  accept that  is  the E n g l i s h  subsection,  powers  that  not  t h e Crown  being of  following  statutory  Canadians  estoppel  inviolability  l i b e r a l i t y of  prerogative  result  Crown.18  aggressive  i m p l i c a t i o n s are  everyday c o n t a c t s  exercise  refusal  approach  the  i n the  the  an  on t h e the  the  provoking  p r i n c i p l e s which e f f e c t i v e l y  hindering  and t h e  or  bind  apart.  analysis.  is  of  another  be f u r t h e r applied  case of  beyond  application  apparent  majority  apply  the  Canadian  be d e m o n s t r a t e d  and Canada  i n the  promote  basis for  practical  For  to  texts2!  century  while  a r e now s t a t u t o r y 2 3 ,  will  its  no c a s e i s any  unsatisfactory,  importance  of  cannot  e s t a b l i s h the  and q u i t e  on a n c i e n t  However,  the  to  i s one t h i n g  c i t e d i n support  n  whatever k i n d ,  an e x c e p t i o n  research intended  from  c a s e s has c o n s i s t e n t l y  h a v e had l i t t l e e f f e c t ,  principle.20  that  of  supporting  representation^ p i e c e of  Canadian  c o u l d not  As  England from  of  English  in p r i n c i p l e estoppel  courts can  -  bind  t h e Crown  e a s e l aw o f  3.  the  Estoppel  rule  the  that  it  that  essential  by  was b e y o n d  powers  its  by t h e  that  Minister of  the  of  idea that as t o  i n pursuance  of  may become bound  by  i s unexceptionable; For  the  restrict its  rule  but  i s subject  a p p l i c a t i o n , namely  of  the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e i s so as t o v i o l a t e  fixing The the  power.  government  to the  courts the Its  its  s h o u l d not  doctrine  of  allow estoppel  b e n e f i c i a r i e s are  the  to  the public  be a d v e r s e l y  affected  1 imitations.^ the  p r i n c i p l e , which i s a p p l i e d i s e x e m p l i f i e d by  powers  the  Matthews28.  conferred  widely  English The  upon him by  it  theoretical  l i m i t a t i o n s p l a c e d by  i n t e r e s t s might  and F i s h e r i e s v . the  the  to  w i t h a d e c i s i o n which  principle finds  override  the Commonwealth27, Agriculture  of  t h o s e whose  those  operation  to be a  principles.  operate  to make.  is all  overriding  throughout  is misleading.  purpose  upon g o v e r n m e n t  The  acting  i n the  academic w r i t e r s  principle, this  severely  effectively  i n s u c h a way  generally,  between  Principle  cannot  ultra v i r e s ^ ,  legislature  divergence  Duties  by E n g l i s h  and d u t y / d i s c r e t i o n  estoppel  justification  and  public authorities  of  gives  l i m i t a t i o n s which  The  operate  stated  statutory  The J u r i s d i c t i o n a l  ensure  Powers  As a s t a t e m e n t  jurisdictional  (a)  all  impression which  two m a j o r  no s u b s t a n t i a l  two j u r i s d i c t i o n s .  is generally  estoppel.24  -  i n p r a c t i c e to  And S t a t u t o r y  It basic  leads  68  case,  Minister,  reg.  51  of  the  -  Defence  of  69  -  the Realm R e g u l a t i o n s 1 9 3 9 ,  had t a k e n p o s s e s s i o n o f  f a r m l a n d w h i c h had n o t been c u l t i v a t e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h of  good h u s b a n d r y .  defendant  Subsequently,  under which the  agreement d e s c r i b e d the the terms found  defendant  defendant  i n an o r d i n a r y  On t h e e x p i r y o f  he e n t e r e d i n t o  the agreement  the  Cassels J .  said:  "It  individual  who had e n t e r e d  plaintiff  is a statutory  therefore,  only  the  entering  into  if  it  This  argument  and n o t an a c t u a l  unreported case M i n i s t e r of would e n t i r e l y  destroy  possible  for  the  creating  an e s t o p p e l . "  to  without estoppel  exception. to operate  failed.  been  o f L o r d Greene  M.R.  power t o e x t e n d  in  the  Hulkin that if  it  "It  was by  been a p p l i e d  a r e c a s e s where t h e c o u r t s have  a g a i n s t government,  of  1939  h i s power  t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e has n o t Thus t h e r e  the  perform."29  the  A g r i c u l t u r e and F i s h e r i e s v .  a statutory  the  from  grant a tenancy  the whole d o c t r i n e of u l t r a v i r e s  donee o f  However,  statement  that  p e r s o n and c a n ,  t h e M i n i s t e r had no power  the  land,  private  he w o u l d have  l a n d o f w h i c h he had t a k e n p o s s e s s i o n u n d e r r e g . 51 o f and q u o t e d  of  land.  the  the agreement  a t e n a n c y had been c r e a t e d , . . . b u t  body  The  agricultural  had been a  this contract,  the  and c o n t a i n e d many  p e r f o r m t h e a c t s w h i c h he i s empowered t o  He w e n t on t o h o l d t h a t  Regulations,  land.  possession claimed inter a l i a  be t h a t  into  principles  r e f u s e d to vacate  created a tenancy.  may w e l l  estopped from denying t h a t  tenant"  defendant  M i n i s t e r was e s t o p p e d by t h e a c t o f he had t h e r e b y  p o s s e s s i o n of  as " t h e  the  an a g r e e m e n t w i t h  tenancy agreement of  and i n s u b s e q u e n t p r o c e e d i n g s f o r  denying that  took  certain  allowed  a l t h o u g h by so d o i n g t h e y  have  - 70 -  effectively  i m p o s e d upon  ultra vires. of  Appeal  This  was t h e  in Wells v.  for  from  regarded  as p e r m i t t e d  majority  that  the  bound  the  Infant31,  i n which a s o l i c i t o r  authority's so.  stating over  that  Court  authority  the  of  Appeal  held the  that  although  Court in  could  a  determination had  i n Re L ( A . C . ) the  not  An  statutory assumption  l e d by  i t was u n n e c e s s a r y from  in  be  t h e company  been  estopped  blocks  be t o l d  h e l d by  authority's  having  authority  to  as a s t a t u t o r y  to a l o c a l child,  only  plant  f a i l e d to comply w i t h  his c l i e n t ' s  Cumming B r u c e J .  English  Government^O,  W e l l s was f o l l o w e d  believe  the  a batching plant,  necessary,  objections  o f f i c i a l s to  procedurally  i t s b u s i n e s s of making c o n c r e t e  The  such a d e t e r m i n a t i o n .  rights  and L o c a l  development.  letter  was  d e c i s i o n of  authority  p e r m i s s i o n was n o t  for  the  planning  asked f o r  parental  of  Housing  to expand  local  the  planning  time-limit  a decision that  planning permission for  a letter  that  effect  M i n i s t e r of  w h i c h a company w i s h i n g applied  government  of  the  for  him t o  r e l y i n g on  do  the  time-1imit. It  i s c l e a r from  jurisdictional  principle is  the cases t h a t intended  procedural  "technicalities".32  procedural  matters...should  estoppel legal  on a m a t t e r  order  procedural him t o  seems t o point  of  However,  it  is far  p o i n t s which are of  apply  Bradley  present  be c a u s e d i f  of  to  very  himself,  advantage  only  to  to  that of  where  the  relation  to  "estoppel  a problem  powers...[N]o  than  harm t o  from  on  the  r e l y i n g on a  i t w o u l d be u n j u s t  towards  exception the  in  i s estopped  his e a r l i e r conduct the  only  much l e s s  a party  from c l e a r t h a t  exception  has w r i t t e n  concerning substantive  advantage  do so i n v i e w  to  this  the  other  i s l i m i t e d to  representor.  Thus  for  side."33 procedural i n Re  L,  - 71 -  where  the  estoppel  child  had been made a w a r d  to o p e r a t e  necessary required  before to  was t o  the  satisfy  child  but  by  local  the  it  litigation of  local  result  from  authority  was o f  to  precisely  the  batching  to  Decisions  s u c h a s W e l l s and Re L .  "legal  t h o s e who the  are  public  was t h e the  order", the  of  requirements of  the  i s t h a t the  override thereby  the  representee.35 to  cases of  Minister  of  of  interests  itself. the  erected  point  local  objections with  planning  authority.  the  or  the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l  p a r t i c u l a r members L.J.'s  dissent  was n o t  (so  to  thereof.  in Wells,  free  speak)  "to  interests  principle, This  where  waive  the  advantage  prejudice  of  the  the  company,  c a s e was o f  of  raised  Again,  vigourous  by t h e  to  t h e y may c e r t a i n l y  the  true  explanation  have s o m e t i m e s  jurisdictional  or  is impossible  procedural  to  be  the maintenance  authority  courts  caused to  be m i n i m a l  was  of of  namely  consideration  he s t a t e d  that  statutory  an a d v e r s a r y ;  it  i s the  guardian  system."34  Perhaps  I  t h a t the  the  allowing  prejudice  in favour of  planning  It  have had on t h e  to  of  the mother would  proof.  plant  may  effect  not  Russell  planning  hearing which  the  because  and n o t  beneficiaries  generally  basis  local  residents,  but  at  r a i s e d i n the  primarily  the  the  advantage only  "technicality"  those  of  self-evident  i n Wells arose  t h a t the  standard  t h a t d e c i s i o n may  is far  residents  that,  court,  c o u l d be d e - w a r d e d ,  a lower  a s c e r t a i n what impact child;  ensure  of  the  compared  That t h i s  procedural Pensions36,  been p r e p a r e d  of  third  with  flexibility  ultra  decisions  p r i n c i p l e , where  interests  nebulous  of  vires  the of  the  parties  to  allow estoppel  potential  i n j u s t i c e otherwise approach  has n o t  Denning J .  Re  to  prejudice  has a p p e a r e d  i s demonstrated  a d e c i s i o n of  s u c h as W e l l s a n d  to  done t o  been  by R o b e r t s o n  d e s c r i b e d by  them  to the  confined v. Bradley37  - 72 -  a s an e x a m p l e underminethe  of  the  " p e r s i s t e n t c u r r e n t s " w h i c h have  "hard rock"  of  the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e .  before  the Second World War,  injury  which l e f t  again  him w i t h  injured while  was l a t e r  found  requesting  the  appellant,  a permanent  to  serve.  In  a d e c i s i o n on w h e t h e r  officer,  service,  so as t o e n t i t l e  to  him t o a p e n s i o n  pensions  scheme.  He r e c e i v e d a r e p l y  Services  at  stating  Relying  independent that of  medical  from  that  under  the D i r e c t o r  of  tribunal, Office  to m i l i t a r y  Denning  letter.  t h e House  adverse  J.  The  of  Lords38,  criticism.  demonstrate  that  i n 1939  doubt  that  service.  but  the  not  the  a nullity,  letter  to  J.  and  to  Office  was e i t h e r  "It  his  war  military to o b t a i n  an  informed  the  outbreak  d i s a b i l i t y was  from the  pensions  powers  to  been r e g a r d e d the M i n i s t r y  vires doctrine  injustice."39 reject  War  little  difficult  t h e War O f f i c e . . . B u t  the  in  Craig  not  disapproved  has r e c e i v e d  of  and  appeal  bound by t h e  i s not  c o u l d have  to  to  the M i n i s t e r of P e n s i o n s ,  of Pensions  ultra  he  duly  omitted  appellant's  s i n c e the  r i s e to m a n i f e s t  c h o i c e before Denning  1939,  a p p e l l a n t was  decision i t s e l f  i n l a w e x e r c i s a b l e by  given  the  On a p p e a l  a s t r i c t r e l i a n c e on t h e  c a s e w o u l d have  appellant  has w r i t t e n :  t h e War O f f i c e  was  an  Personal  b a s i s on w h i c h he d i d so was soon  Bradley  u l t r a v i r e s and thus P e n s i o n s were  the  h e l d the M i n i s t e r novel  of  disablement claims a r i s i n g after  t h e M i n i s t e r had d e c i d e d t h a t  back  the  h i s c a s e had been  Subsequently,  t h e war had been t r a n s f e r r e d  attributable  the  assurance,  opinion.  the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n  that  by  on t h i s  suffered  t h e War  c o n s i d e r e d and h i s d i s a b i l i t y a c c e p t e d as a t t r i b u t a b l e service.  His  years  d i s a b i l i t y was a t t r i b u t a b l e  military  t h e War O f f i c e ,  he w r o t e  to  Some  s e r v i c e i n December  1941  his  an army  back c o n d i t i o n .  he was on m i l i t a r y  unfit  sought  as  as  of  I am i n  no  Robertson's notes40  estoppel,  that  thereby  -  leaving  the l o s s w i t h  so s p r e a d t h e  loss  learned judge's to  the  73  -  appellant,  in minute  or  portions  to  h o l d the  throughout  society at  d e c i s i o n embodied a v a l u e judgment,  sympathise,  to  the e f f e c t if  that  done t o  the a p p e l l a n t  minimal  i m p a c t on t h i r d p a r t y  the m a n i f e s t  he a d o p t e d  the  department  bound,  large.  i n t e r e s t s that  The  w i t h which i t  is  i n j u s t i c e t h a t would  f i r s t course outweighed would f o l l o w  and  easy be  the  from  the  second. These principle of  cases i l l u s t r a t e the  has i n p a r t i c u l a r c a s e s t o work  c e r t a i n c o u r t s to  "rogue"  decision,  minor exception  a government  of  allow i t  the  to  detriment  to  doctrine,  will  with  this  question  the  honour state  "[t]he  always outweigh  He c o n c e d e s t h a t  there  b o r n e o u t by t h e  facts.  planning,  s e c u r i t y or  But  social  in other  o t h e r way.  cases,  the  affairs,  the  the  "This  of  the  tax,  remains  i n which the  that  seem e v e r y  reason to  a legislative solution,  allow estoppel  i t would  fall  to  to  vires.  that  the vires  the  harm w i l l  the c o u r t s  occurs."43 tilt  individual  the has  and t h e harm  individual,  apply."44  i  be  context,  representation  r e l i e d upon an u l t r a v i r e s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , of  where  individual."42  upon t h e  "[w]hen...an  that  a  t h i s presumption w i l l  the balance of  to  of  analysis  the u l t r a  upon t h e  be d e p e n d e n t  compared  as a  estoppel  w o u l d be u l t r a  b e n e f i c i a r i e s of  as i n R o b e r t s o n ,  that  presumption  harsh e f f e c t  will  treated  and i s l e d by h i s  a r e many s i t u a t i o n s where  p u b l i c w o u l d be m i n i m a l  would  of  is  reluctance  to m i s l e a d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n ,  information  C r a i g a c c o r d i n g l y argues  detrimentally  basic rule  validity  p u b l i c , who a r e  i n j u s t i c e , and t h e But Robertson  The  that  which the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l  a r e e x p l a i n e d as e x a m p l e s  b i n d government  d e c i s i o n to  Robertson  do s o .  principle.41  so as t o  i s unhappy  to  w h i l e W e l l s and Re L  to  cannot operate  Craig  potential  n  to  there  the absence  to c o n d u c t i n  every  of  - 74 -  case a balancing t e s t ,  weighing  refusing  the  estoppel The  political.  with  difficulty  "If  the  i n j u s t i c e to  with  Parliament  this  has  imposed c e r t a i n d u t i e s  bodies  decide that  d u t y be n o t interest  performed,  i s minimal  result,  Craig's  severity  of  apply  it  by  On t h e  requires  harm  important  a flexible  accepts,  limits  or  to  that a  in  interests to  of  its  On t h e the  courts  afforded  third  party  interests  by  statutory  c a n be t a k e n  to  c a s e s s u c h as R o b e r t s o n ,  overriding  of  the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l  i n j u s t i c e without  adversely  interest.  But,  the  clearest cases,  the  role  of  lack  both  t h e mandate  an u n a c c e p t a b l e this  thesis  extension  t h a t the  make c h o i c e s between that  beyond of  courts the  competing  i s p r e c i s e l y what the  principle, its  have sought  scope.47  This  to  limit  approach  is  test  equally  its  any  the  this  government in  court  It  i s the  and t h e  which to  threatens burden  competence in society.  of  to Yet  involve.  unhappy w i t h  the  jurisdictional  i m p a c t by p l a c i n g r e s t r i c t i o n s  f a c i l i t a t e d by t h e  avoid  significant  approach  represented  would  on  other  the c o u r t s .  interests  balancing  Other academic w r i t e r s ,  affecting  involving  protection  limitations  a manifest  taken  the  p r i n c i p l e allowed  to  individual  application,  undermine  the  one h a n d ,  a l l o w the  the  "The  central  would  No e x c e p t i o n  to  the  be b a l a n c e d a g a i n s t  principle.  approach  public  judgment.  test,  power.  statutory  an i n d i v i d u a l ? " 4 5  the  of  correct  a balancing to  powers  the  encapsulates  it.  is  the  the  detriment  value  from  allowing  to  p r i n c i p l e must This  from  the c o u r t s  a political  i n the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l  other,  are  t h a t the  t h a t of  discretion."46  i n f l e x i b l y may  citizen.  determining  individual  as C r a i g  l i m i t s c a n be e x c e e d e d ,  the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l  inherent  it,  the  parties  down c e r t a i n  upon  compared w i t h  analysis  increased j u d i c i a l difficulty  these  third  approach,  laid  a body o r to  i n j u s t i c e to  fact  that  the  upon  principle  -  c a n be d e f i n e d w i t h is  different  -  degrees of  concerned s i m p l y to ensure t h a t  four  c o r n e r s of  their  c o n v e n i e n t way o f  statutory  that  the  prevent  use o f  the  broad v e r s i o n  This  of  estoppel  i s d i f f i c u l t to  p r i n c i p l e i s a p p l i e d , estoppel  government  decisions which,  if  it  of  follow.  Unfortunately  no a t t e m p t  justification  for  to  l i m i t the  who w e r e a l l  On J a n u a r y 1 s t  force.  Under t h a t of  falls  provide  impose  would  have  of upon been  judicial  within  the  four  unreasonable. result.  a reasoned  the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e  Court  of Appeal  1949,  Act,  a CUKC t o  t h e y were C i t i z e n s  of  Gowa was h i m s e l f a CUKC,  born b e f o r e  1947,  i n Gowa  the S e c r e t a r y  of  the S e c r e t a r i a t  seven c h i l d r e n the  and  State  Act  United the  of  in Dar-es-Salaam,  1948 came  was empowered  be i t s e l f r e g i s t e r e d a s a CUKC, by a p a r e n t  v.  became B r i t i s h s u b j e c t s  the B r i t i s h N a t i o n a l i t y  made i n t h e p r e s c r i b e d manner approached  scope of  the E n g l i s h  a declaration that  birth.  minor c h i l d  to  be a m o s t u n s a t i s f a c t o r y to  to  o n l y a narrow v e r s i o n  w h i c h c o n c e r n e d an a p p l i c a t i o n by t h e  K i n g d o m and C o l o n i e s ( C U K C s ) . applicants,  asserts  w o u l d be  the p r i n c i p l e s of  i s made by B r a d l e y  by a n o t h e r means was made by  one Gowa f o r  the  it.  An a t t e m p t  of  Bradley  had a c t u a l l y made t h e m ,  to  the  is a  g r o u n d s on w h i c h  d i s c r e t i o n , but which i s m a n i f e s t l y  t h i s would appear  Attorney-General49t  If  a d e c i s i o n which apparently  a statutory  f i r s t sight,  the  it  may be u s e d e f f e c t i v e l y  for  At  to  it  are kept w i t h i n  i t s broadest,  a g a i n s t government  review:  of  at  narrowest,  the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e  to c h a l l e n g e i n accordance with  corners  its  public authorities.  amenable  example,  At  public authorities  powers;  d e c i s i o n s of  the o p e r a t i o n  "harmful".48  breadth.  r e f e r r i n g compendiously  c o u r t s may r e v i e w t h e  the  75  the c h i l d . where t h e  upon  at into  to cause  the  application  In 1951, f a m i l y was  Gowa then  -  living, Act.  and a p p l i e d f o r  t h e a p p l i c a n t s t o be r e g i s t e r e d p u r s u a n t  w o u l d be t a k e n on t h e  already  Citizens  letter,  applicants that  -  The Member f o r Law a n d O r d e r 5 0 w r o t e  action  this  76  they  of  no f u r t h e r  In  the e r r o r c o n t a i n e d i n the Member's that  t h e y were not CUKCs,  registration status,  as s u c h .  The  that  they were CUKCs.  of  of  estoppel  This  a c t i n g as a g e n t  status  of  confirmation  of  i s s u e was w h e t h e r  the  power o f  the Governor,  CUKC by one m e t h o d o n l y ,  and L l o y d  L.JJ.  rejected this  t h e Member had power  to  grant  the  important  s t a t u s of  CUKC,  The dismiss  it  decision  to procedural  ultra vires,  for  of  but  Cairns  ground t h a t  d i s s e n t e d on t h e  estoppel  he Stephenson  c o n s i d e r a t i o n was and i t  mattered  an a p p l i c a n t  on t h e e x t e n t  of  It  i s i m p o s s i b l e to  being permitted  the case t u r n e d ,  f o l l o w e d by t h e M e m b e r ,  the  status.  i s d i f f i c u l t to j u s t i f y .  s i m p l y as an e x a m p l e  and  granting if  n o t w h e t h e r he d i d so by r e g i s t r a t i o n o r by d e c l a r i n g t h a t r e g i s t r a t i o n already possessed that  majority  t h e Member f o r Law  he a c t e d u l t r a v i r e s . the  from  The  had been l i m i t e d t o  argument;  for  the a p p l i c a t i o n of  n a m e l y by r e g i s t r a t i o n ;  t o e m p l o y any o t h e r m e t h o d ,  for  to  their  S t a t e was e s t o p p e d  a r g u m e n t was a c c e p t e d by a  purported  that  the  drew a t t e n t i o n  the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e .  contended t h a t  Order,  1979,  of  and i n f o r m e d t h e a p p l i c a n t s  the S e c r e t a r y of  The c e n t r a l  would contravene  Attorney-General  In  a p p l i c a n t s s o u g h t a d e c l a r a t i o n as t o  denying that  Appeal.  are  and c o u l d no l o n g e r be r e g a r d e d as e l i g i b l e  arguing i n t e r a l i a  the C o u r t  letter,  further family  and Commonwealth O f f i c e  r e s p o n s e , the Foreign O f f i c e  the  As a r e s u l t  s t e p s i n the m a t t e r .  from the F o r e i g n  were C U K C s .  no  a p p l i c a t i o n , as " y o u and y o u r  t h e U n i t e d K i n g d o m and C o l o n i e s . "  Gowa t o o k  sought  in reply that  to  n o t on t h e  h i s powers.  to  give  rise  procedure Thus S i r  David  " i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e a p p l i c a n t s , who  - 77 -  were  not  CUKCs,  d e c i d e whether performing the  [the or  that  the  Court  of  of  ultra  as t h e  CUKC b y  their  would  applications,  a particular  d e c i s i o n had t h e  i m p l i c a t i o n to  is that  of  procedure.  effect  for  of  instead not  offend to  and n o t  effecting  against  simply  Accordingly,  imposing  upon  of  the  register  the  a d e c i s i o n w h i c h was  fixing  In  where  the  make a d e c i s i o n w h i c h have a c h i e v e d make.  It  area  the  it  it  has  government i n f o r m a t i o n receive a financial liability  to  the  Secretary  substantively  by  other  reason  of  of  to the  speculate  adopted  prevent  i s to  to make,  is  the M i n i s t e r  how f a r  or  to  not  does  it  a p p r o a c h may be  citizen  into  to  it  Finance,  expecting  be r e l i e v e d o f  for  a  government to  to  honour of  where  will  the  to  have power  the  or  to taken.  financial be g r a n t e d  Audit  he i s s a t i s f i e d t h a t , to  or  expectations  the A u s t r a l i a n  i s reasonable  an  could  to  uncommon  it  it  that  the  by  principle  is in relation  Thus s . 3 4 A ( 1 )  circumstances,  about  operate  enabling  of  estoppel  to  avoid  the  a l l o w government  provided  this  by  d e c i s i o n where  the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l  potential  which m i s l e a d s  It  not  an u l t r a v i r e s  estoppel  has no power  such i n f o r m a t i o n .  special  principle will  words,  effect  benefit,  or p e n a l t y .  1 9 0 1 5 2 empowers  reasoning  e s t a b l i s h e d c o u l d have been b r o u g h t  assume c o n c e s s i o n a r y p o w e r s  created  the  same r e s u l t by a d e c i s i o n w h i c h  is interesting i n which  from  government w i t h  thereby  decision.  be o f f e n d e d  be drawn  the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l  affairs  intra vires  to  reject  reason  If,  Member was empowered  successor authority,  effectively  state  One  to  The  it  discretion...to  as s u c h .  a wrong  them C U K C s ,  his  vires.  majority  not  of  Appeal's  The  from  he c o u l d by g i v i n g  as CUKCs o r  exercise  s h o u l d be r e g i s t e r e d  principle."51  status  State,  they  d u t y was t o  i n d i r e c t l y make  [jurisdictional]  grant  not  duty,  registration  applicants  Member's]  do s o ,  to  direct  Act by  -  that  an amount  Commonwealth,  up t o A u s t . o r amounts  $5000 p e r payment, the  amount  this  i s , or  power  78  $2500 p r o p o s e d  proposed  be t r e a t e d t h e amounts  i s u s e d i s where  to  the Act  the M i n i s t e r  to Aust. Revenue  $25,000.  equity that,  or waiver  and p o v e r t y . 5 4 where  government  to  although  financial  at  large.  have  the  a far  the  It  be t o  greater  generally  empowered to  all  to  the  as t h e  distribute  interested  of  r e s u l t brought  not  the  of  loss  the  that  including  suggests to  entitlements  about  bind  or information  by e s t o p p e l  be  c o u l d be  cases  allowing estoppel  operate  i n small  portions  i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s where  is  statutory  The  i n Gowa  Inland  a p p l i c a b l e s o l e l y to  party  interests.  subject  for  to  society  estoppel  will  Take the  case  the p r o t e c t i o n  reasoning  first  of  among  of  r e s t r i c t i o n s , which government  in p a r t i c u l a r cases a f t e r  persons.  permit  up  power.  effect  enterprise  to c e r t a i n  amount  on g r o u n d s  the m a j o r i t y  of  The j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e c a n n o t  i n Gowa i s the  70C(2)  any  c i t i z e n may use e s t o p p e l  concessionary  where  duties,  take a course  s.  of  Kingdom  l e g a l l y due,  of  i m p a c t upon t h i r d  remove  payment  where  c o n c e s s i o n s made by t h e  his financial  may a l s o be e m p l o y e d  where a c e r t a i n type public  reasoning  reasoning  information,  generally  duties  as t o  the  in the United  be u l t r a v i r e s .  a c h i e v e d by use o f  to waive  that  case his  to  s i m i l a r l y , under  a d e c i s i o n i n accordance with  i n such a c a s e ,  But  or  exist,  information  would o r d i n a r i l y offended  The  such powers  liabilities,  will  taxes  One  the  Aust.  notwithstanding  i n the e x e r c i s e of  extra-statutory  and E x c i s e  of  payable  l e g a l l y payable.  detriment.53  Again,  a p e r s o n by  w h i c h has l e d a c l a i m a n t  i s empowered  and by C u s t o m s  remission  not  an o f f i c i a l ,  of  be p a i d t o  t o be p a i d p e r i o d i c a l l y up t o  are,  incorrect information his financial  to  as p r o p e r l y  has g i v e n action  -  according a  i n Gowa w o u l d e n a b l e  the is  hearing the  courts  - 79 -  to  h o l d g o v e r n m e n t bound  particular that  estoppel  achieved to  enterprise  i s not  would merely  i n any  explain  by an i n c o r r e c t subject  achieve  e v e n t under  the  to  representation the  restrictions,  a r e s u l t which  dispensing  that  on t h e  c o u l d have  power.  It  would  of  the  procedural  ultra  to  accord a hearing  interested  persons  for  could  the  not  omission  be d e s c r i b e d  exception  as a  basis  been be  s u c h a d e c i s i o n as an e x a m p l e vires,  a  in  impossible  favour  of  to  procedural  "technicality". The  potential  consideration which  the  that  citizen  body a g a i n s t  it  impact  the  estoppel  It  w h i c h may  injustice  albeit  on t h e  citizen,  puts  afford test, role  manages  it  to the  of  other  powers  courts,  by  represented  avoid future  principle,  possible Robertson, avoid  the  principle  to j u s t i f y namely, a manifest  cases.  For  the  case  but  which  those  Moreover,  central  which  it  difficulty  attempts  i n a more o r  less  to  of  estoppel  a  injustice without  doing  inherent  balancing  any  the  the  an  in  way.  same g r o u n d  of  competing  address merely  harm t o  particular  limitations  case i s  to o p e r a t e  courts,  statutory  extension  arbitrary  i n Gowa on t h e  allowing  the  is  the  proposed  an u n a c c e p t a b l e  very  i n a manner  disregard  interests  the  to  i n the  them t o make c h o i c e s between  decision  t h a t by  to  like Craig's  society.  the  power  by e n a b l i n g  effectively  protection  the  the  injustice,  Ultimately,  within  jurisdictional of  the  However,  the  l i m i t e d by  i s vested  a clear  government i n  allowing  to  an e s t o p p e l  raised.55  i n Gowa t h r e a t e n s  response  scope  of  interests.  unsatisfactory  to  in  in jeopardy  reasoning  the  interests  the  to  is  i n Gowa i s  inapplicable unless  in restricted circumstances,  limitations  reasoning  as j u s t i f y i n g  unsatisfactory. create  the  i s presumably  points  which  of  the by It  limiting is  as t h a t court  other  in  managed  significant  - 80 -  interest.56  unfortunately,  justification, later  (b)  with  connected  to  find  i s hoped w i l l  a  different  not  commend  itself  to  duty.57  purposes.  jh  Maritime E l e c t r i c Privy  Council  was a p r i v a t e Fredericton, a statutory and t o  The  it  Ltd.  on a p p e a l  i s to ensure  would  example  Co.  p r i n c i p l e e s s e n t i a l l y has two  first  where  classic  e  Principle  duty/discretion  a l l o w e d to operate  of  v.  from  duty  to  furnish  General  meter  two y e a r s ,  charged for  at  with  only  the  appellant  result  to  of  that the  that  a p p e l l a n t was e s t o p p e d  recover  This  the  c h a r g e and upon  for  defeated  all  argument  5 8  ,  a  statutory  The  company,  of  that  the  balance,  in was  failed.  The  with  and  dairy  appellant,  p e r i o d the  the  the  e l e c t r i c i t y consumed by t h e  latter,  a period  respondent  i t consumed. respondent  On  to  imposed a duty pay a t  of  a  had  upon  a specified  which duty c o u l d not  i n computation  was  contended  t h e c o r r e c t amount  statute  respondent  under  facilities,  appellant  butter  that  the  w h i c h c a r r i e d on a  the  the  is  appellant  it  s e r v i c e and  of  be  a d e c i s i o n of  Canada.  e l e c t r i c i t y which  o r a v o i d e d by a mere m i s t a k e  of  not  p r e m i s e s was m i s r e a d o v e r  during  the  will  but  principle in action  respondent,  from denying  been c o l l e c t e d . to  adequate  part  respondent's  one-tenth  of  s u p p l i e d by  on t h e  the  appellant  The  was  c l a i m by the  Court  used i n the m a n u f a c t u r e  the  the  separate  and s u p p l i e d e l e c t r i c i t y  reasonably  Owing t o a m i s t a k e  electricity  performance  As a " p u b l i c u t i l i t y "  business in Fredericton, it  the  estoppel  Dairies L t d .  Supreme  specified rates.  which  that  aspect of  company w h i c h g e n e r a t e d  charge at  products.  prevent  this  the  New B r u n s w i c k .  electricity,  rate  strove  courts.  The  of  court  a r e s u l t which i t  The D u t y / D i s c r e t i o n  dairy  the  the  accounts.  be  -  L o r d Maugham,  delivering  sections  of  sections  enacted  -rounds  of  Lordships  to  not  a positive  kind,  doing of the  for  not  the  defendant  to  appellant  and t h e  The that  the  i s not  a s p e c t of  the  English  Divisional  a b u i l d e r ' s yard to  the  that  borough  purpose.  planning  the  The  began  authority  to  the  the  planning  d e c l i n e d to with  that  seeks  the  any to  their  which  are  formality,  do,  it  of for  i s not  Although  principle  duty  on  imposes a duty  it."59  the  is,  and  statutes  c a s e was i m p o s e d upon  open  the  both  the  enunciated  i s i m p o s e d upon  duty/discretion to  fetter  principle Hodgson The  found  e x e r c i s e of  (Wickford)  premises  that  the  the  the  company  suitable  its  discontinue  upon  borough  the  notice  to  his reply,  engineer  use,  for  i t was  requiring  it  and t h a t  no  the the  had been use.  s e r v e d by to  wrote for  Later,  that  of  establish  p r e m i s e s c o u l d be u s e d  as a b u i l d e r ' s y a r d . the  statutory  needs,  r e p l i e d t h a t they c o u l d , Relying  a  a decision  wished to  to  by  Ltd.61,  p e r m i s s i o n was n e c e s s a r y  an e n f o r c e m e n t  principle is  is illustrated  respondent  premises view  of  are  alone.60  engineer  use t h e  as t o  prevent  f o r c e where  a s k i n g whether  borough  formed  in fact  respondent  local  having  engineer  authority  and t h a t  Court.  public,  such a c a s e -  performance  to  "The  in question  statute  i s clear that  p e r m i s s i o n was n e c e s s a r y .  respondent local  and,  v.  the  plaintiff  allowed  Southend-On-Sea Corporation the  of  held that  the  In  opinion  as h e r e ,  the  it  equal  second purpose  This  any  Electric  representee  estoppel  discretion.  sense.  s e t up an e s t o p p e l  respondent,  Board,  a s e c t i o n of  by t h e  in the Maritime  or  of  express  act which  the  A c t which are here  - where,  case a p p l i e s with  representor  ensure  to  avoidable  very  of  i n a general  category  duty  the  judgment  benefit  propose  statutory  in  the  public policy  this  to  the  -  the P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s  not w i t h i n  the  81  do s o .  wrong, When  the The  - 82 -  r e s p o n d e n t appealed a g a i n s t the a p p e a l . s o u g h t to local  authority  argue t h a t  notice and,  the borough  from c o n t e n d i n g t h a t  logical sought  by t h e D i v i s i o n a l  one w h e r e  it  After  principle  the  be r a i s e d t o  of  from p e r f o r m i n g  statutory  powers.63  prevent its  government  i n the  its  to  of  some s t a t u t o r y  disregard that  application  of  jurisdictional used to  prevent  information  the  idea that it  c a n s e e no  an e s t o p p e l a statutory  being duty a  statutory of  and  statutory  i s a duty  under  the  duty/discretion  of  it  powers.  i s not  for  the  powers imposed or  if  government  d u t i e s or  Its courts  conferred those  c o u l d be  from e x e r c i s i n g i t s  the p r i n c i p l e i s t h a t  citizens  cannot  f r o m a c t i n g upon d e c i s i o n s w h i c h a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h fact,  where  those d e c i s i o n s f a l l  duty or d i s c r e t i o n .  may be h e l d t o a s t a t e m e n t it  "I  was  Once a g a i n , t h e b e n e f i c i a r i e s a r e  The e f f e c t  e a r l i e r statements  bounds of  said:  s e p a r a t i o n of  whose i n t e r e s t s m i g h t be a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d prevented  the  discretion."62  the  d u t i e s or rob  by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e .  argument  d i s c r e t i o n there  i n the d o c t r i n e of  r e l i e v e government  estopped  h i n d e r the e x e r c i s e of  the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e ,  justification lies  of  performance of  a l l , i n a case of  i s rooted  theoretical  it  This  Lord Parker C . J .  t o e x e r c i s e a f r e e and u n h i n d e r e d Like  upon  prevent  i s sought to  discretion.  to  powers.  d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n a c a s e s u c h as t h a t t o be r a i s e d t o  statute  Court.  engineer's letter  the  p l a n n i n g p e r m i s s i o n was r e q u i r e d ,  and so f r o m e x e r c i s i n g i t s e n f o r c e m e n t rejected  at the hearing of  of  within  In o t h e r w o r d s ,  the  government  f a c t o n l y w h e r e i t w o u l d be u l t r a v i r e s  statement.  This  i s e f f e c t i v e l y an i n v e r s e  the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e .  The c o m b i n e d r e s u l t o f  and d u t y / d i s c r e t i o n p r i n c i p l e s  i s that  government  f r o m a c t i n g upon a d e c i s i o n  e a r l i e r p r o v i d e d to  for  estoppel  the  may be  inconsistent with  the c i t i z e n o n l y where t h a t  decision  is  -  ultra  vires64>  intra  vires.65  of  l o g i c and c o n s i s t e n c y  duty/discretion a broad  while  t h a t broad  jurisdictional  the  For  v.  that  it  p r i n c i p l e , but  principle.  In  the  authority  citizens.  In  ultra vires  to  the  act  power,  of  to  by e n s u r i n g  that  of  lies  in another  v i r e s covers  earlier  favour This  of  point  rather  adversely  ex p .  an a p p l i c a t i o n i s elaborated there  for  is  for  in  a  its of  For  if  government,  judicial  review  of  the  Lords  in in  was  held  statutory  the concept  of  principle the  concept  i t may be  eschew e s t o p p e l  bear  with  But the  the  dealings  by a g o v e r n m e n t d e c i s i o n will  to  i n which i t  vires,  satisfy  satisfy  duty/discretion  direction.  that,  the  to  House of  satisfied.68  of  harder  important  expansion  the  of  e a s i e r to  and u n f a i r l y  render  part  it  Preston67,  this  to  duty/discretion  the E n g l i s h  i s always  affected  it  importance of  ultra  expected  inconsistent  altogether  decision  in  itself.  below.69 are  suggestions  circumstances estoppel  i n the  may be a b l e  to  be  principle66,  s h o u l d be n o t e d  the  and so u l t r a  government i n f o r m a t i o n  However, certain  it  i n c o n s i s t e n c y on t h e  that a c i t i z e n with  context,  estoppel,  potential  it  would  in relation  inhibiting effect  t h a t of  d e c i s i o n of  redundant, Preston  the  inconsistently  context  has t h e  However,  correspondingly  this  information  adoption  u l t r a v i r e s makes  Revenue C o m m i s s i o n e r s ,  i t may be an a b u s e o f  public  of  the  the  as t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l  minimizes  a wide concept  i m p l i c a t i o n s of  Inland  as w e l l  ultra vires.  principle,  duty/discretion  R.  of  favour  d e f i n i t i o n maximises  jurisdictional  mind the  principle,  definition  principle.  -  and a d e c i s i o n i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h  Both the  83  authorities  prevent  that  government  in from  - 84 -  acting  upon e v e n an i n t r a v i r e s d e c i s i o n i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h  information. emphasized  Thus i n t h e M a r i t i m e E l e c t r i c  that  imposed f o r  the  the  statutory  benefit  o p i n i o n on w h e t h e r  the  of  In  other  sorts.  i m p o s e d by t h e appellant, sacrifice  7 0  those  duty,  or  advance  by  the  to  apply  This  where of  so t h a t  no o t h e r  i m p l i c i t l y endorsed  the  has n o t y e t  Supermarket of  with  i t s premises.  permit to  party  o r by  the  interest  the  the  of  to  the  supports  interests  the  argument  are  interest lawful  African  may  affected.  case Durban C i t y  plaintiff  of to  promoted  c a s e , but  it  the  v.  similar by  amount  the e l e c t r i c i t y recover  has  Council  was s u p p l i e d  for  be  the  be a d v e r s e l y  defendant  to  estoppel  i s secured or  reported  i n c o r r e c t adjustment  courts  the  o f which were c l o s e l y The  statutory  in  e x e r c i s e of  to  secured  in order  the Board  p o s s i b i l i t y that  been  the  estoppel  those of  d e c i s i o n of  facts  In an a c t i o n by t h e  d u t y had  d i s c r e t i o n , the  those  no duties  in accordance with a  stands  Electric case.  to  particular interests  been a p p l i e d i n any i n the South  the  customers  e l e c t r i c i t y , b u t was u n d e r c h a r g e d  consumed as a r e s u l t o f at  to  a statutory  open t h e  and C a f e 7 2 ,  the M a r i t i m e  plaintiff  duty  all  interests  l i k e the  no t h i r d  the  of  been  and e x p r e s s e d  held that  it  d e c i s i o n taken  argument,  been  those  for  where  e x e r c i s e of  approach  to  Board  interests  that  case, leaves  operate  public,  decision accordingly  effect  This  Glenore  The  the  p r i n c i p l e s which o v e r r i d e  imposition  discretion,  the  Council  p r i n c i p l e would extend  the  w o u l d be w r o n g  lawful  Electric  a l l o w e d to  it  company.  others.  Maritime  words,  by a g o v e r n m e n t  i n the  s h o u l d not  duty/discretion  statutorily-protected  dairy  made e a r l i e r 7 ! , or promoted  a s e c t i o n of  other  the Privy  d u t y w i t h w h i c h i t was c o n c e r n e d had  l e g i s l a t u r e i n the  and t h a t  respondent  of  case,  earlier  the  meter  amounts  - 85 -  undercharged, plaintiff  the defendant  from c o n t e n d i n g t h a t  the p l a i n t i f f electricity accord  sought  pointed  t o r a i s e an e s t o p p e l  there  had been any e r r o r .  t o a d u t y p l a c e d upon i t  to persons w i t h i n  t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n on t h e  c o u l d not operate  to  prevent  w h i c h was i n t e n d e d t o be p e r f o r m e d generally, African  i s prevented  statutory public  authorities,  interest.  that  duty  He w e n t on t o  Thirion J.  consumers  similar...If  same p a r t  of  in  of  the  w o u l d a l s o mean t h a t it  hold that  the  so t h a t for  operate  extension, protect  lawful  b o r o u g h and u n d e r  public  i n South  South African of  duty i n  estoppel  c o u l d not  equal  treatment  the performance  t h i r d party  interests.  law,  a  and i m p o s e d i n  statutory  the  the  of  operate: all  defendant  i n t e r e s t s of  statutory  statutory  from r e c o v e r i n g  ratepayers  t h i s judgment of  u s e r s of e l e c t r i c i t y  similar circumstances.  p l a i n t i f f w o u l d be p r e v e n t e d  e x e r c i s e s of  duty,  h a s been u n d e r c h a r g e d t h e e f f e c t w o u l d be  c l e a r i m p l i c a t i o n of  to prevent  that  such a  the  to  t h e b o r o u g h where c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r e  i s by l a w o b l i g e d i n t h e The  supply  analysed the  defendant would r e c e i v e a p r e f e r e n c e over other  t h e same p a r t  which  to  p l a i n t i f f were t o be e s t o p p e d f r o m c l a i m i n g f r o m  t h e amount by w h i c h d e f e n d a n t that  of  i s "peremptory"  the s e c t i o n i s to p r o v i d e  i n the  response,  to h i n d e r the performance  i n s t a n t case s a t i s f i e d both c r i t e r i a , o b j e c t of  the b e n e f i t  In  and a r g u e d  and c o n c l u d e d t h a t  from a p p l y i n g  duty o n l y where  them,  the  same t e r m s and  the performance of  for  or of a s e c t i o n t h e r e o f .  and E n g l i s h  estoppel  "The  by s t a t u t e  "no p r e f e r e n c e o r p r i v i l e g e " t o any o f  estoppel  to prevent  is that duties -  to  d i s c r e t i o n - w h i c h do  revenue  recover." 3 7  estoppel and,  It  by not  may  - 86 -  4.  The E l e m e n t s  Of  Estoppel  The j u r i s d i c t i o n a l and d u t y / d i s c r e t i o n p r i n c i p l e s , and t h e applied  i n Canada t h a t  obstacles  to  the o p e r a t i o n of  difficulties itself.  In  citizen  estoppel  cannot  estoppel  a r e a l s o p r e s e n t e d by t h e some c a s e s ,  t o make o u t  the c o u r t s  fetter  requirements of  d e c i d i n g whether  i n p r i n c i p l e the c l a i m to  wel1-founded.74  But  principle  head o n ;  favour  government,  of  determine whether out. the  This fact  and s i n c e t h o s e the c o u r t s  estoppel  that  estoppel  of  of  is issues  have u s u a l l y been d e c i d e d found  it  unnecessary  c o u l d i n any e v e n t  h i g h l y u n l i k e l y to  in  to  obscure  limited  provide  t h e p r o b l e m s w h i c h may be g e n e r a t e d by m i s l e a d i n g  of  be made  p r i n c i p l e has t e n d e d t o  is a doctrine applicable in f a i r l y  and i s t h e r e f o r e  the  necessity  r a i s e an e s t o p p e l  have o f t e n  the elements of  f a i l u r e of  the  only  doctrine  have p r e f e r r e d t o meet  issues  c o n c e n t r a t i o n on m a t t e r s  circumstances, all  they  to a v o i d  the  Major  the  r e l i e d upon t h e  i n order  i n most c a s e s ,  are not  a g a i n s t government.  have  these elements  the Crown,  rule  a panacea  for  government  information. In  the f i r s t p l a c e ,  a g a i n s t government  the c i t i z e n s e e k i n g to  may e x p e r i e n c e d i f f i c u l t y  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n upon w h i c h he r e l i e s likely  t o happen where  the  in proving  was a c t u a l l y m a d e .  d i f f i c u l t i e s w h i c h may f a c e a c i t i z e n  government  bound by o r r e s p o n s i b l e i n damages f o r  been c o n s i d e r e d . 7 5  difficulties false  claims.  Court  to  that  the  This  is  a l l e g e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n was o r a l .  evidential  already  r a i s e an e s t o p p e l  i  n  the  seeking to oral  p a r t i c u l a r case of  The hold  information estoppel,  a r e s o m e t i m e s compounded by a p r o n o u n c e d j u d i c i a l Indeed,  i n the U n i t e d  draw a d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n  States  most  these fear  t h i s f e a r has l e d t h e  the l e g a l  effects  of  oral  have  and  of  Supreme written  -  representations, e s t o p p e l .76  representation  to  The  effect  decision  being g e n e r a l l y  the  of  of  the  into  as where  or  infer  his case i s  to  found  an  the  from  citizen  the  the  requirement  relevant  t h e Supreme  Court  of  to  document  is,  that  he was t h e  i l l u s t r a t e d by M o n t a n a the U n i t e d  States  he was  v.  Kennedy7**,  to  the  petitioner's  mother  held  found  of  the  petitioner.  In  case,  i t was t h e  representation  an e s t o p p e l  r e l i a n c e of  the  which a d v e r s e l y  r e s u l t w o u l d be no d i f f e r e n t of  h i s own r e l i a n c e upon  if  i n favour  representee  affected  herself  upon  the c i t i z e n ' s  the c i t i z e n  a representation  a  i n which a  made by a c o n s u l a r o f f i c i a l  to  the  representee.  representation unable  the  founded.77  that  is  alleged  i s unable  c i t i z e n m u s t be a b l e t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t  representation;  this  unable  d i f f i c u l t i e s may o c c u r e v e n where  imply  upon w h i c h  Secondly, of  -  was made i n w r i t i n g ,  the c o u r t  recipient  former  But e v i d e n t i a l  representation persuade  the  87  suffered  that  the  interests, detriment  p a s s e d on t o  was  him by  but  by  the  reason  the  representee. Even i f  it  i s accepted or proved  upon as c r e a t i n g an e s t o p p e l fail  to  satisfy  representation law.  This  State  for  decision service  the  court  i s the  that  the  the to  by t h e D i s t r i c t  appellant  to cease the  hiring  plant  Council unlawful  and e q u i p m e n t .  of  the  t o be a s s i g n e d t o  by B e d f o r d i a  the E n g l i s h D i v i s i o n a l  representation citizen,  Plant  Limited  Court.  The  enforcement  it v.  relied  he may  s e n s e i n w h i c h he u n d e r s t o o d  t h e E n v i r o n m e n t and N o r t h B e d f o r d s h i r e of  of  was a c t u a l l y made  sense p r o p e r l y  i s demonstrated  that  that  as a m a t t e r Secretary  of  District Council79,  case r e s u l t e d notices  from  requiring  use o f  c e r t a i n l a n d as a d e p o t  On i t s  appeal  against  the  of  a  the the  for  the  notices,  the  - 88 -  appellant  contended  inter alia  district  council  w h i c h was t h e  District  Council  was e s t o p p e d  argument  was d i s m i s s e d by t h e  and, The  on a f u r t h e r court  one o f  noted  appeal  that  which would  appeal,  the  A fourth upon  facts  to  the  This  point  Ltd.  v.  of  the  "[A]  of  rural  use.  the  two  Environment,  other  the  may n o t  a rule,  of  the  common k n o w l e d g e  legal  the  law being t h u s ,  assertion that  of or  the  of  severable  the  parties...is  thus,  and t h e r e  which arose  f r o m a r e q u e s t by t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f  The  suppliant  enter  cutting and c u t  to c u t  and remove  submitted began,  the  timber,  s u p p l i a n t claimed compensation  the  commencement  representation, to  of  expropriation  w h i c h t h e Crown  an i n t e r e s t  a tender,  t h e Crown  The  i n the  jack  and l a t e r for  in G i l l i e s  the  w h i c h was d u l y  awarded  the it  p r o c e e d i n g s amounted  land  to  from d e n y i n g ,  s u f f i c i e n t to  attract  Mines  its  accepted.  suppliant's  to a n o t h e r  expropriation,  was e s t o p p e d  Bros.  p i n e on one o f  expropriated  is  otherwise."80  The K i n g 8 1 ,  tenders  or  effect  law i s  r a i s e an e s t o p p e l  founded  principle,  and a d i s t i n c t and  the  be  to  for  and  doing.  of  or a statement  On  only  interpretation,  estoppel  statement  Court.  interpretations,  contentions.  the  the  This  the attempt  However, before  entitled  the  by t h e D i v i s i o n a l  i s that  another  that  for  i n l a w by so  obstacle  law,  fact  State  had f a v o u r e d  subject of  the  against  law,  of  the D i s t r i c t C o u n c i l ,  appellant's  erred  law.  general  of  a minute  defeated  stations.  to  of  of  of  was c a p a b l e o f  a g a i n s t a subsequent  and R e s o u r c e s  right  have  or which are w i t h i n  a statement  no e s t o p p e l  State  potential  which form the  statement, not  of  Secretary  on a m a t t e r  of  a representation  proposition  from e n f o r c i n g  accord with  be s a i d  by v i r t u e  predecessor of  the minute  Secretary  he c o u l d n o t  that,  firm.  contending  that  a that  it  a right  was to  -  compensation  -  under the E x p r o p r i a t i o n  argument,  on t h e g r o u n d  inference  to  therefore  unable to  Australia  h e l d i n Wormald v .  be drawn  that  from  found  upon a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n vegetables  89  the  Act.  rejected  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n was as t o  facts  known e q u a l l y  an e s t o p p e l .  that  Cameron J .  Gioia82  to  Again,  that  both  as t h a t  legal  parties,  and was  Court  of  c o u l d n o t be  a l i c e n c e was n e c e s s a r y t o  from a k e r b - s i d e s t a l l ,  the  t h e Supreme  an e s t o p p e l  this  sell  fruit  South based  and  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n was one  of  law. This great  l i m i t a t i o n on t h e o p e r a t i o n  importance  distinction government  i n r e l a t i o n to  between  fact  i s a major  generate  conduct  answers to  government-controlled purely  to  tax;  whether  or b e n e f i t ; all  uncertainty; of  fact,  the or  whether  law,  i n r e l a t i o n to  was p r o v i d e d  that  Whether  and  the  the e x c l u s i o n of  It  has  been  government a  such u n c e r t a i n t i e s  of mixed  few,  the  i n response to  i n s t a n c e s where  to matters  the  a particular  f o u n d an e s t o p p e l .  value  information  is clear  to c i t i z e n s .  are q u e s t i o n s of  c a n be o f  it  although  c e r t a i n circumstances  be r e l a t i v e l y  i s more o v e r w h e l m i n g place,  provided  for,  of  f a c t and  law,  and p e r h a p s c o n f i n e d l a r g e l y t o  the  procedure. However,  first  that  to matters  may be e x p e c t e d realm of  to  to a g r a n t  estoppel  o n l y where  is potentially  information,  information  them a r e a c c o r d i n g l y u n a b l e t o  information  relate  legal  is prohibited:  p o i n t e d out83 t h a t  estoppel  and l a w i s s o m e t i m e s n e b u l o u s ,  is liable  an e n t i t l e m e n t  c o u r s e of  government  s u p p l i e r of  a proposed t r a n s a c t i o n  of  its  effect  in theory  impact  i n response to  of  than  is mitigated  it  has p r o v e d  by t h e  fact  government-controlled  representations in practice. that  In  of  law  the  information  uncertainty  often  takes  the  -  form of *ble  an u n d e r t a k i n g  to c a l l  in aid  to  representations  in  other  planning the  the both  doctrine of  by W e l l s v .  concerned a l e t t e r  M i n i s t e r of  from a l o c a l  contained the Court  treating  it  as c o n t a i n i n g  operated,  not  to  hold the  that  from c o n t e n d i n g  that  effect.  However,  this  r e s p e c t between  representation.  Both  A fifth estoppel  against  representation intention  of  be p r e s u m e d . Canada  the  surely  difficulty government  legal  i n General  binding  lies  in  adopt  i s moderated  to  the  by t h e to  statute.  authority  to  by  v.  that  the  its  the  requirement have  fact the  that  effect  Maritime  of that  it  therefore  express but  to  prevent  determination  to  distinction of  of  law,  in  and an  such a  law.  s e e k i n g to that  raise  conduct.88  E l e c t r i c Co.  the  The  an i n t e n t i o n the  an  the  been made w i t h  d e c i s i o n of  no  the  expedient  and e f f e c t  citizen  which  law,  Estoppel  to  of  is  Although  of  on a m a t t e r  the  a course of  the  This  effect  s e e any m a t e r i a l  status  must  i s i l l u s t r a t e d by Dairies Ltd.  to  representations  facing  i n d u c i n g him t o  This  it  are  Government86t  on a m a t t e r  representation  upon w h i c h he r e l i e s  requirement  and L o c a l  was n o t a s t a t u t o r y  is difficult  as t o are  problem.  be  apply  the c o u r t s  p e r m i s s i o n was r e q u i r e d ,  letter  w h i c h may  a p a r t i c u l a r development.  planning  an e x p r e s s  representation  the  authority  made p u r s u a n t  the it  estoppel,  an i m p l i e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n  local  t h e c i t i z e n may  secondly,  representation  no p l a n n i n g that  Housing  for  cases,  s u c n  g l o s s over  Appeal87 h e ! d  determination  representation  this  of  n  law.85  planning  an e x p r e s s  of  was a f o r m a l  to  i  promissory  and o f  p e r m i s s i o n was r e q u i r e d  letter  implied  fact  of  prepared  majority  it  -  or a s s u r a n c e . 8 4  c a s e s sometimes  illustrated  90  to  effect  i n d u c e may  Supreme Ltd.89,  of  Court where  of it  -  was h e l d t h a t  the  respondent  have  the  appellant  intended  of  its  b u s i n e s s upon t h e  of  i t s e l e c t r i c i t y charges.  a s i g n i f i c a n t impact Brunswick90, Province  to  construction  relevant  land's  However,  l a n d was r e j e c t e d  had l e d p r o v i n c i a l  the  it  ordinary  regarding  requirement  by S t a i r s v .  course  the  station  Province of  the  The  adjacent  to  plaintiff's  intention  by t h e c o u r t ,  o f f i c i a l s to  of  the  the  believe  for  the  Trans-Canada  argument  ground  have  New  that  i n d u c i n g him t o  on t h e  amount  may s t i l l  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s made by  the  the  purchase  that  the  that  he was a l r e a d y  the  representation  c i t i z e n must e s t a b l i s h t h a t  i n d u c e d an a c t o r o m i s s i o n on h i s p a r t .  the  c l a i m to  r a i s e an e s t o p p e l  the  restaurant-service  the  citizen  station  representation citizen's decision  must have  Donner91,  the High  been  Court  favour  of  r e c e i p t of  h i s plans  reasonably  This of  Province  relevant  a  wholly  uninduced  Furthermore,  capable of  requirement  the  for  a new p r o j e c t ,  v.  on  inducing  the  the  i s i l l u s t r a t e d by  the  Southern  Rhodesia  in Salisbury City  Council  i n w h i c h i t was h e l d t h a t  estoppel  c o u l d not  prevent  the  land contravened  the  from c o n t e n d i n g plan,  his  in Stairs  t o l d by t h e P r o v i n c e .  act or o m i s s i o n . of  to  had a b a n d o n e d  in  Thus a s e c o n d g r o u n d  was d e f e a t e d  subsequent  by w h a t he had e a r l i e r been  zoning  i n the  made t o  that  an e s t o p p e l .  New B r u n s w i c k was t h a t ,  Council  act  b u i l d i n g p e r m i t s w o u l d be f o r t h c o m i n g  were made w i t h  representations,  v.  to  to  owner.  actually  of  company  representations  that  found  Sixthly,  which  dairy  of a r e s t a u r a n t - s e r v i c e  representations  plaintiff  e l e c t r i c i t y s u p p l y company m u s t be t a k e n  i t was h e l d t h a t  effect  Highway c o u l d not  the  -  i s demonstrated  i n which the  91  that  when t h e o n l y  a p a r t i c u l a r use o f  representations  r e l i e d upon were  approvals  -  given  by t h e C i t y  bylaws.  However,  decision  of  that  if  Architect it  to  a c t as he d i d ,  to  act  it  Finally, requirement act or  that  financial  /\ s  terms w i l l The  the  against  doctrine  Council,95 daughter  a  have  qualify  the  bus p a s s .  is  statute  alternatively  Council  the Council  that  the  plaintiff,  to  Court  pass.  The  w o u l d be p r o v i d e d ,  the  the case,92 citizen  induce  of  her  for  of  home.  the  for  to  him  Appeal.  v.  The  school which  of  Kent  the  County  the  Council the  local  child  the c h i l d ' s  travelling  plaintiff's  daughter  be u n d e r  of  plaintiff's  such a c a s e , for  judicial  to  with  the p l a i n t i f f ' s three m i l e s .  review  As  and  a home a The  this decision,  f r o m a s s e r t i n g an e n t i t l e m e n t  a l l e g e d was t h e  appeal  of  his  in  has on t h e o p e r a t i o n  In  the  as a r e s u l t o f  purposes  transport  an a s s u r a n c e f r o m of  the  in  bus p a s s s h o u l d be w i t h d r a w n .  was e s t o p p e d  right  the c i t i z e n  quantifiable  d i s t a n c e between  the  detriment  upon r e c e i p t o f  for  a loss  provide  and f o u n d  apply  the C o u n c i l  only  reimburse  decided that  leave  difficulty  a secondary  to  to  thereafter,  result,  contending  from  to  i l l u s t r a t e d by R o o t k i n  chose to p r o v i d e  s c h o o l was m e a s u r e d ,  sought  building  i n d u c i n g the  i t was i n t e n d e d  which t h i s  the E n g l i s h  and t h e  withdraw  rule,  t h r e e m i l e s from her  Shortly  plaintiff  that  as a d e t r i m e n t  government  i s o b l i g e d by  expenses;  capable of  i n c u r r e d some d e t r i m e n t  general  a  d e c i s i o n of  s c h o o l , or  the  i n the M a r i t i m e E l e c t r i c  was r e a s o n a b l y  was a l l o c a t e d a p l a c e a t  authority from  Canada  restrictive effect  a c c e p t e d was o v e r  to  c a s e s , and n o t a b l y  is a potential  he must  estoppel.94  pursuant  way.  there  omission.93  of  does n o t m a t t e r  i n some o t h e r  Engineer  from o t h e r  Court  representation  -  and C i t y  appears  t h e Supreme  the  92  to  abandonment  the C o u n c i l the  that  Secretary  of  by  to  the  a bus  pass  State  for  - 93 -  Education starting  a g a i n s t the of  the  daughter  unreasonable  for  The  Appeal  Court  of  sufficient  its  at  at  held that for  the  her daughter;  f r o m w h i c h i t w o u l d have in order  to  attend  t h i s was a l o n g way purposes of  point  estoppel  to  and  school.  from amounting  estoppel,  the  been  a nearer  to  and d i s m i s s e d t h e  be g l e a n e d f r o m t h i s  i s that  the  b e s t an a r b i t r a r y means o f  information.  eyes  school,  be u p r o o t e d  important  the elements of  doctrine  at  p l a c e a l l o c a t e d to  application.  The of  her to  detriment  plaintiff's  school  This  l e a s t of  citizen  brief  consideration  i s l i k e l y to  ensuring that  a r b i t r a r i n e s s may be f u r t h e r  find  government  honours  increased, in  t h e a g g r i e v e d c i t i z e n , by t h e o p e r a t i o n o f  the  the  the  rules  of  agency.  5.  Estoppel  And  Agency  Where a c i t i z e n w i s h e s t o e m p l o y a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n made t o will  be w h e t h e r  government agency. actual  the  itself.  The  greater a matter  him by a g o v e r n m e n t  This  question  express or  difficulty will f a l l i n g outside  resolves  be c a u s e d w h e r e the  scope of  a critical  where  provide  the  the o f f i c e r  his actual  the  by  rules  the o f f i c e r  of  had  information.  Far  assumed a u t h o r i t y  authority.  This  to  question  be r e g a r d e d as made  i t s e l f through  be s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d i m p l i e d , to  to h o l d government  officer,  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n may p r o p e r l y  situation will  authority,  estoppel  on  is a  common s o u r c e o f m i s l e a d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n ,  as i n f o r m a t i o n  provided  in  circumstances  at  or l a t e r  disowned  by g o v e r n m e n t .  i s more l i k e l y t o If  in  be wrong  the o u t s e t ,  such a c a s e the c i t i z e n  i s unable to  r a i s e an  such  - 94 -  estoppel,  the e f f e c t i v e n e s s  government  Robertson  p o s s i b l e means o f "if  is  to  p r i n c i p l e was  result,  provide  it  denying  that  be s u b j e c t exception the  to  the  suppose law.l°l  the  it  of  immunity  elements  The  i n Freeman  from are,  the  which  House to  of  to  it  assumes."97  Lords.9^  lacking actual agency,  to p r e v e n t  clear that  to authority  to  and s p e c i f i c a l l y  one p e r s o n  the  government  upon  but  of  of  from is  bodies  may  doctrine constitutes conferred  p u b l i c l a w has y e t  elements  the making of  a  as h i s a g e n t 9 9 ,  All  from e s t o p p e l  v.  But  authority.  there  the  position  formulation  (A F i r m )  As  h o l d government  estoppel.  and an a l t e r a t i o n  & Lockyer  a subject  i n Canada  doctrine  in  to  reliance  of D i p l o c k L . J .  (as  Properties  c o n t r a c t s on b e h a l f  upon  private  r e s u l t i n g from  B u c k h u r s t Park  an  definitively  i s no r e a s o n  in essence, a representation;  more d e t a i l e d  -jn relation  he  officer  f i e l d of  principle  w i t h w h i c h he i s c o n c e r n e d ,  ostensible authority,  differ  representation;  Ltd.,103  i s reasonably  the  a  it  r u l e s of  of  offered  takes  the  apparent)  doctrine  sweeping  they  by  which operates  No c a s e i n t h e  Those  reliance.1°2 was)  it;  elements  that  the  shape o f  acted in a p a r t i c u l a r matter  upon t h e  Crown.100  stated  that  another  to  upon  i n the  authority  use e s t o p p e l  o s t e n s i b l e (or doctrine,  founded  the  against  Denning J .  dealings with  on a m a t t e r  by a g o v e r n m e n t back  Pensions96,  in i t s  having  as a p r o t e c t i o n  reduced.  difficulty,  soon d i s a p p r o v e d  i s thrown  This  further  department  on i t  provided  d o c t r i n e of  itself  this  a c i t i z e n w i s h i n g to  information  the  rely  doctrine  M i n i s t e r of  assume a u t h o r i t y  e n t i t l e d to  this  v.  evading  a government  on i t s e l f  that  inconsistency is yet In  that  of  of  upon  that  he  then  (Mangal)  private  - 95 -  companies, officers  c a n be a d o p t e d  so as t o  (i)  cannot  from  This  acquire authority  that i s not  by  not  from  the  (Finance)  v.  Appeal,  representation  Westminster  to  had been made w i t h i n  T h e r e was e v i d e n c e  authorities  of  plans  M.R.  allowing their  p r o d u c e d when  of  the  planning  the  emanate  is clear that  the  i s i l l u s t r a t e d by  the e f f e c t the  officer  must  the  and Megaw L . J .  a widespread  officers  it  extremely  i t ; 104  a d e c i s i o n of  in certain respects without  authority.  in  may p r o v e  i s founded  This  Corporation,!05  i n which L o r d Denning  planning permission,  the  citizen  as h a v i n g  However,  conduct.  by a p l a n n i n g o f f i c e r ,  c o u l d be m o d i f i e d  to  h i m s e l f out  agent.  may be made t h r o u g h  of  government  l e a s t because a government  holding  representation  Court  of the and  of a " h o l d i n g o u t , "  upon w h i c h o s t e n s i b l e a u t h o r i t y  the p r i n c i p a l ,  Ltd.  by  s a t i s f a c t o r y e v i d e n c e t h a t the p r o v i s i o n to c i t i z e n s of i n f o r m a t i o n of the s o r t concerned the case i s i n t r a v i r e s government.  satisfy.  representation  information  require:  f i r s t element,  to  p r o v i s i o n of  an a c t o r o m i s s i o n on t h e p a r t i n d u c e d by t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ;  (iii)  difficult  the  a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t h a t t h e o f f i c e r had a u t h o r i t y to p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n of the s o r t c o n c e r n e d i n t h e c a s e , made t o t h e c i t i z e n by a p e r s o n w i t h a c t u a l a u t h o r i t y t o manage t h e a f f a i r s o f government i n r e l a t i o n to the m a t t e r w i t h which t h e i n f o r m a t i o n was c o n c e r n e d , o r i n r e l a t i o n t o the p r o v i s i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n g e n e r a l l y ;  (ii)  The  to  that  his  held that  a  p e r m i s s i o n was g i v e n ;  a plan  fresh  ostensible  p r a c t i c e amongst  t o make i m m a t e r i a l  English  an a p p r o v e d  need f o r  scope of  Lever  planning  modifications the  architect  - 96 -  for  Lever  (Finance)  was a c c o r d i n g l y authorities widespread planning  the  rely  problems.  For  the  apparent  there  final the  the  information  of  government,  is unlikely  sort  the  court  estoppel  on w h i c h  not  have t h e  effect  of  officer will  not  to  information  was  authorised  requires i n the  c l a i m of  have t h e  which otherwise  difficulty.  on t h e  induced  also  than  to p r o v i d e then,  rely  on a  it.  at  empowered  effect  of  not  provision  to  authority, to  Yet  least  in  to the  to  should  be  the first,  that  i s founded  will  to and  information  conferring empowered  it  information  authority provide;  of  vires  ensure  authority  officer  government to  is  itself  However,  twice:  ostensible  i s not  it  may  c a s e m u s t be i n t r a  be r e l e v a n t  bind  have been  i s true  t h a t the  his ostensible  conferring  it.  authority.  which  within  its  i n many c a s e s t o  the  latter  the  h e l d out  information,  and  by  by a d o p t i n g  c i t i z e n must  b i n d g o v e r n m e n t by e s t o p p e l  which government  that allowing estoppel  short,  may be e x p e c t e d  t o c a u s e any  the  authorised  i n accordance with  officer's  t h a t the  that practice,  effectively  act  the  officer  principle will  the  do s o m e t h i n g  the  concerned  to  by an o f f i c e r  jurisdictional  the  whereby  citizen  element,  t h a t on a c l a i m  to  know o f  In  Corporation  authority  upon  it  followed.  c a n be no o s t e n s i b l e  The  information  that  r e l i a b i l i t y of  that  he c a n s a t i s f y  provided  i t was  as h a v i n g  to  theory,  noted  had been  assume  Westminster  representation  unless  to  second e l e m e n t ,  on t h e  prior  to  areas  practice,  officers  c o u l d be p r e s u m e d  h o l d i n g out  present rather  entitled  i n whose  The by  Ltd.  provide secondly, provided  on g o v e r n m e n t power do.  by to  -  6.  -  Assessment It  serious  i s apparent  limitations  information. fact to  that  Just  them.  Thus t h e  authorities  as w e l l  which  "legal  preceding  ability  of  these  rules  to  of  have  for  actually  same i s t r u e  its  display a of  those  to o p e r a t e  the  chosen  the  are a p p l i c a b l e to  permitted  are  i s d i s g u i s e d by  c i t e d by W a d e * 0 6  The  has been  are  cases the c o u r t s  persons"107  principle.  there  h o l d government to  limitations  about...estoppel  other  estoppel  discussion that  estoppel  authorities  as t o  duty/discretion proprietary  the  i n s i g n i f i c a n t number  that  the  on t h e  i n a not  ignore  from  how s e r i o u s  proposition  of  97  public  disregard  cases  against a  in public  a u t h o r i t y . 108 The  most  important  limitations  duty/discretion  p r i n c i p l e s , and  estoppel  bind  cannot  jurisdictional  the Crown.  cannot  which  inconsistent with  unless  operate  would  i n any  effect  that  it  acting within upon the  it  by  is consistent i s the the  the  interests  legislature, and v a l u e s  to what e x t e n t .  The  with  the  effect  and  i n Canada  of  the  in p a r t i c u l a r , acting  e a r l i e r provided  that  to  is  that  upon a d e c i s i o n the  citizen,  and a d e c i s i o n i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h The  result  is  that  on an a p p l i c a t i o n the  arguments  and p r o p e r  powers  but  not  represented  performance  of  function  this  society  of  may  to  review. to  and  the  determine  imposed which  s h o u l d be p r o m o t e d ,  function  they  government,  conferred  the c o u r t s ,  in  judicial  made e a r l i e r l ° 9 ,  and d u t i e s  of  for  the  estoppel  s u c h g o v e r n m e n t d e c i s i o n s o n l y where  legitimate  scope of  applied  government from  vires  e v e n t be o v e r t u r n e d  approach  still  principles,  information  to o v e r t u r n  the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l  combined  have b e e n i n t r a v i r e s .  be u s e d e f f e c t i v e l y  This  prevent  that decision is ultra  information  could  to  rule  The  and d u t y / d i s c r e t i o n  estoppel is  the  are  of  and  may l e a d g o v e r n m e n t  to  - 98 -  make to  d e c i s i o n s which are  citizens.  Accordingly,  b i n d government governmental government  inconsistent with  to  its  function  the  values.  As  together  ensure  substitute  it  is,  that  estoppel  estoppel  pillars right "by  of  of  government  interest  the  rule  of  v.  is  that  the  which the  plaintiff:  and p o w e r s  Mary,  defendants "This  individuals.  to  whereby, to  effect  their  past conduct,  to  This  to  and a g r e e d  operate  the  Hornsey  affecting  put to  with  the  of  the  was  M.R.  that  to  against  the private  and w i t h  enabling  them  rights  to  permitted,  the c o u r t s  i n s u c h a c a s e w o u l d be f o r  them t o  to  of  Council  the  i s r e l i e d upon as e s t o p p i n g  For  same  in Vestry  District  have  whose  The  i n mind i n c o n s i d e r i n g  an end t o w h a t t h e y allow."113  conflict,  the p l a i n t i f f s as  purpose  that  the  at l a r g e ,  public duties,  m u s t be b o r n e when  Urban  earliest  one o f  to g i v e w a y . " H I  by L i n d l e y  the  rule  the  subject,  nation  r a i s e an e s t o p p e l  duties.  asserting a right  of  the  ought  from  i n cases of  that  to  underlies  asserted that  sought  them f o r  is  unlawful.  even  v.  upon  and  principles  government  i s apparent  individual  i s not a q u e s t i o n  conferred  of  Islington  their  estoppel  role  is  the  lawful  its effect  one t h a t  Alderson J .  They a r e a p u b l i c b o d y ,  even e n c o u r a g e d  of  to  impede  particular interests  be u n d e r s t o o d  to  to  p r i n c i p l e s , and t h e C a n a d i a n  prerogative  discharge  from  the  the Crown,  any p r i v a t e  St.  in a review  provided  estoppel  potential  o n l y where  c o n s t r a i n t was s u c c i n c t l y s t a t e d  the P a r i s h of  of  usurp  be p r e f e r r e d  in r e a l i t y  of  of  decision for  Grover110,  t h e Crown was t o  political  in  fetter  In G i l e s  the K i n g  promotion  and d u t y / d i s c r e t i o n cannot  authorities.  the  the c o u r t s  may o p e r a t e  That a r e l u c t a n c e to  that  have  t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l and d u t y / d i s c r e t i o n  a lawful  jurisdictional  would  by i n v o l v i n g the  earlier  u n r e s t r i c t e d a p p l i c a t i o n of  information  d e c i s i o n s as t o  information  them  and  permit  risk sacrificing  - 99 -  third in  party  interests,  performance  statutory the  of  secured or  a statutory  discretion,  estoppel.114  to  This  the  estoppel  injustice.  to  operate  so a v o i d e d  prejudiced,  at  cases,  approach  this  courts  is manifest  principles,  the  or of  the  "the  use o f  legality  of  Robertson  v.  requires  M i n i s t e r of and t h e  a pension  creates  to  Corporation,  parties  involved,  account the  from  the  taking  not  But,  the  citizen,  the  the  only  to  court  as i n L e v e r  action,  to  bar  as  dispute  in are  v. of  third  planning taking  into  t h a t may be c a u s e d by a d e c i s i o n i n f a v o u r  emphasis].  It  is  the  final  part  a  outcome  interests  without f i r s t  important  estoppel  Ltd.  the  of  the  is  financial  (Finance)  that  rules  Where,  the  of  relation  powers,  it  by use o f  this  in  role  between  process. to  clearest  the  strict  kind,  i s s u e s and t h e decide  usurp  from  parties  is  and  statutory  this  the  beyond the  solution  i n the  citizen,  court  of  of  where  has w r i t t e n ,  and j u s t  and t h e  enforcement  [my  the  environmental  should  courts  to  v/ork  interest  taken  a departure  created  Pensions,  harm t o o t h e r s  developer?"116  involve  to  flexibility party  raising  a willingness  do so w o u l d  the e x e r c i s e  But when,  Westminster  authority  is  be p a i d  no i n j u s t i c e .  are  this  exercises a function  injustice  authority  to  a  avoid.  displayed  Thus B r a d l e y  prevent  to  of  citizen  the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l  and so a l l o w  may  striven  minimally.  a more e q u i t a b l e  When a c o u r t  additional  public  to  estoppel  in favour  parties. that  of  to  exercise  individual  and no t h i r d  government.  estoppel  operation  the  refusal  c o u l d undermine  duty/discretion  to  of  lawful  have a l s o  c a n be t a k e n  l e a s t more t h a n  legislature  i n the  interests  where the  No e x c e p t i o n  injustice  duty or  by a g o v e r n m e n t d e c i s i o n made  t h e y have g e n e r a l l y  However, c e r t a i n allow  advanced  of  this  of  extract  - 100 -  which  i s unacceptable:  choices  it  i s not  for  the c o u r t s  to w e i g h and make  between c o n f l i c t i n g i n t e r e s t s . This  undertake Estoppel  i s not  that task;  s i m p l y because the c o u r t s are w i t h o u t they a l s o l a c k the  i s certainly a wholly t h i r d party  t o o l s by w h i c h t o p e r f o r m  inappropriate vehicle for  consideration  of  interests.  justification  f r o m t h e p e r c e i v e d need t o m a i n t a i n t r u t h  and a c c o r d i n g l y f o c u s s e s n a r r o w l y their  respective legal  appreciation  of  rights  alleged representor  not m e r e l y those of litigation. estoppel  Far  all  the  the expense of  d i s c u s s i n g Lever  Ltd.  plaintiffs. injustice  But  (Finance)  the e s t o p p e l  material. How,  all  partesll7,  the l i t i g a t i o n , f a c i l i t a t e an e x i s t when  the duty of  the  shaping  its  i n t e r e s t s represented in s o c i e t y ,  and  happens  t o be i n v o l v e d  a l l o w i n g one c i t i z e n t o others.  v.  in  t h e y were n o t ,  assert his  T h i s was made c l e a r  Westminster Corporation,  no d o u b t  in in  Megaw  a v o i d e d an i n j u s t i c e t o  L.J.  the  r e g a r d e d as h a v i n g c a u s e d an  the  p u b l i c , t h e owners o f  adjacent  a f f e c t e d by t h i s wrong and c a r e l e s s  the p l a n n i n g o f f i c e r t h a t Yet  inter  its  Penwith D i s t r i c t Councill!8, where,  t o one o r more members o f  of  burdened w i t h  i t may a l s o be f a i r l y  h o u s e s who w o u l d be a d v e r s e l y decision  cannot  it.  from e n a b l i n g the c o u r t s to weigh c o n f l i c t i n g i n t e r e s t s ,  v.  permit  It  t h e c i t i z e n w i t h whom i t  Western F i s h Products L t d .  "To  doctrine receives  p a r t i e s to  to  the  i n t e r e s t s which f r e q u e n t l y  i s i n f a c t capable only of  own i n t e r e s t s a t  said:  upon t h e  i s government,  c o n d u c t w i t h due r e g a r d t o  The  and c o n d u c t .  the t h i r d p a r t y  a mandate  the m o d i f i c a t i o n s were  and i t w o u l d  seem c o u l d n o t ,  i n t h e i r a b s e n c e , c o u l d the c o u r t balance the  according  as t h e c o u r t d i d o r d i d n o t h o l d t h a t  f a v o u r of  the p l a i n t i f f s ?  What " e q u i t y "  be  not heard.  respective injustices  t h e r e was an e s t o p p e l  i s there  in holding,  if  in  s u c h be  -  the  effect  party,  of  the  as a r e s u l t o f  That potential estoppel  does In  suited  to  In  it  by  other  all  the  court  too,  rise.  to  for  the  a representation  information  provided  Secondly,  of  in  the  law i s t h a t  operation  of  the  be a b l e  to  found  it  actual  the will  or o s t e n s i b l e  a i d s to  the  the  in financial  upon w h i c h  the  incurred  terms  both  are  T h e r e may  representor representor  and is  government,  and d i f f i c u l t t o  an e s t o p p e l  cannot  justify. be  significant quantities entirely  estoppel  aggrieved  r u l e s of  outside  is further  citizen  to  agency,  an e s t o p p e l  be  the  the  founded of  legal  doctrine's  restricted,  in a  equally  whereby  against  acting within  an  detriment  serious d i f f i c u l t i e s .  the  ensure  a  government scope of  only  his  authority.  administrative  essentially  singularly i l l  restricted circumstances.  when b o t h  was made by a g o v e r n m e n t o f f i c e r  L o r d Scarman public  the  of  and t h a t  fall  a p p l i c a t i o n of to  account.  representation  rule that  arbitrary,  if  the  arbitrary  appear  representation  fairly  fact  manner w h i c h w i l l by  elements  b u t where  by g o v e r n m e n t  an  doctrine  both  the  r a i s i n g of  the  requirements  r e s u l t of  into  irrelevant?"!!9  government  that  persons,  it  the  third  to which m i s l e a d i n g  the c i t i z e n w i t h  these  but  is  i s an i n s t r u m e n t  must be q u a n t i f i a b l e  r e s u l t s which are  In p a r t i c u l a r ,  take  estoppel  First,  i n j u s t i c e to a  the e s t o p p e l ,  relevant,  applicable only  are p r i v a t e  produce  potential  of  the problems  presenting  representee  scope.  granting  requirements  representee  be good r e a s o n  upon  the  i s f o u n d e d must be one o f  capable of  they  ways,  may g i v e  particular,  the  that  not a l l o w the  is properly  estoppel  the  -  injustice is highly  resolve  information that  decision,  101  has  said  that  law concepts  the  doing of  "it  i s wrong  to  s u c h as e q u i t a b l e  justice  in private  introduce estoppel law."120  into which jne  are  -  102 -  discussion  in this  doctrineis  c e r t a i n l y an u n s a t i s f a c t o r y  protecting  t h e i n t e r e s t s o f c i t i z e n s m i s l e d by g o v e r n m e n t  It  s e c t i o n has a t t e m p t e d  r e m a i n s t o be c o n s i d e r e d w h e t h e r  itself  of providing  misleading  JUDICIAL  1.  Introduction:  a n d i n a p p r o p r i a t e means  administrative  information  may g i v e  information.  typical  Review  s i t u a t i o n w i t h which t h i s Part  wishes to d i s c l a i m  I t might  information  appear a t f i r s t  review could contribute The e s s e n t i a l  to attack  on t h e g r o u n d  that  the to  their  function  those  issues  previously  of j u d i c i a l  Thus B r a d l e y ,  review of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  by g o v e r n m e n t ,  that  b e e n p e r c e i v e d as o f f e r i n g government  estoppel  from  provided  to  that  that  i s to enable affect It  them,  involves  not the e s t a b l i s h m e n t  a t the outset  of h i s a n a l y s i s of information,  the general  i s lead  law of  action."121  the i n f l e x i b i l i t y of t h i s  i s c e r t a i n l y true  holding  review  which adversely  subject differs  that  proceedings f o r  g e n e r a t e d by m i s l e a d i n g g o v e r n m e n t  However, It  that  bound by  decisions are l e g a l l y d e f e c t i v e .  c o n s i d e r "how t h e p r e s e n t  judicial  i s concerned i s  to a r e s o l u t i o n of  d e c i s i o n s o f government  immutability.  legal  sight  little  the c h a l l e n g i n g of p o s i t i o n s adopted of  information.  law i s capable b y ,  a c i t i z e n and t h e c i t i z e n w i s h e s t o h o l d government  citizens  of  rise.  The P r o m i s e O f J u d i c i a l  i n which government  situation.  the  REVIEW  The  judicial  that  a more a c c e p t a b l e r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e p r o b l e m s t o w h i c h  government  B.  to demonstrate  approach  by r e p r e s e n t a t i o n  t h e most p r o m i s i n g , i f  by l a w t o i t s i n f o r m a t i o n ,  is  unfortunate.  has h i s t o r i c a l l y  not the o n l y ,  but that  means  p e r c e p t i o n now  of  -  requires the  r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n the  p r i n c i p l e s of j u d i c i a l  may o p e r a t e  to  the  from denying  citizen  provided  to  prevent  the  abandonment  that  of  the problem  -  light  of  review.122  government that  The  hope o f  i n subsequent information  Its  focus  i s s u e being whether position. from the  the c o n t i n u i n g  the  him was c o r r e c t .  by g o v e r n m e n t ,  attack  103  opposite  new p o s i t i o n w h i c h g o v e r n m e n t  to  assert that,  i n the  earlier for  provided  government  purported  to  the  of  l e a s t by  the  largely  authorities,  of  last  twenty y e a r s .  resurgence  inconsistent  i s one w h i c h  procedure  review  as a means o f  of  judicial  They p r o b a b l y  when  as a r e s u l t o f  the  the to  to citizen  adopt  and  information i s not  the  -  review  it  lawful  has  to  t h e Ombudsman -  l a w seemed t o  "maladministration"!24  in the Parliamentary  Commissioner A c t ,  but  reports  leave  that  to  us i n no d o u b t  incorrect information,  by o f f i c i a l s t o  "the look  in  law, in  form the  Parliamentary  whose o f f i c e  government.  he i s a s t u t e  inadequate  the  was  be f a i l i n g t o p r o t e c t  defined  u V  been  i n England  the  the  activity  edge o f  experienced  owe s o m e t h i n g  has  judicial  against  been g i v e n  adopted  dealing with  information  citizen  have  it  by w h i c h  w h i c h a r e on t h e c u t t i n g  for Administration  c r e a t e d i n 1967123,  where  enables  has p u r p o r t e d  the  by m i s l e a d i n g g o v e r n m e n t  recently,  part  Commissioner  at  alia  new p o s i t i o n  promise of j u d i c i a l  recognised only The  that  with  so.  problems generated  England.  him,  to a d o p t ,  do  The  to  position  should preclude  It  it  originally  initial  direction.  f o c u s on t h e  inter  proceedings  it  of  i s that  r e v i e w has the p o t e n t i a l  to  light  legal  fairness  Judicial  estoppel  which  i s the  development  T h a t term  the is  not  Ombudman's out  for  instances  advice or misleading assurances  i n d i v i d u a l s , who t h e r e a f t e r  suffer  loss  -  or other  i n j u s t i c e through  Ombudsman's government  define  some w r i t e r s , been c o n t e n t  acknowledging to l e a v e  of  the  r u l e of  discretionl27t the  the  principles  of The  decisions  judicial  following  cases  to  where  citizens  has  conduct.  in this  Indeed,  field,  have  t h e Ombudsman.126  does a p a r t i a l system of  abdication  administrative  maladministration. do we g r a f t  This  on t o  For  the  law  the  j u s t i c e a c c e p t e d and a p p l i e d  discussion indicates that, may be u n n e c e s s a r y and achievement  through  in  by  relation  that use o f  the  namely  have  overturned  e a r l i e r government  those  duty  courts  to  i n which the act f a i r l y  government  information  unlawfulness  and t h o s e  fall  of  the  i n which i t  into  two  decision comprised  discretion.  The that  opportunity  f  The  review.  The D u t y To A c t F a i r l y :  individual  i s "how  cases i n which the  the  to  as i t  j u s t i c e may be c a p a b l e o f  i n a breach of  purposes  0  it  estoppel  an u n s t r u c t u r e d  inconsistency, grafting  broad c a t e g o r i e s ,  2.  of  administrative  inconsistent with  an a b u s e o f  involving  question  The  of  by  government  problem e x c l u s i v e l y  " t w i l i g h t world"128  p r i n c i p l e s of  government  e a r l i e r provided  the weakness  solution,  essential  administrative  lay  the  law i n f a v o u r  t h e 0mbudsman?"129 to  statements."125  a c c e p t a b l e and u n a c c e p t a b l e  an u n s a t i s f a c t o r y  essential  r e l i a n c e on t h e s e  information  is  Bradley,  -  w i l l i n g n e s s t o c l a s s i f y as m a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n disowns  helped to  104  important  to  element  which r e q u i r e s  t o be t a k e n  Procedural  only  of  the  Fairness duty  to a c t f a i r l y  decisions affecting after  the  be h e a r d on t h e m a t t e r .  individual  the  i s for  i n t e r e s t s of  has been g i v e n  No a t t e m p t  present  will  an  an  be made h e r e  to  -  elaborate  the  i n which i t  105  precise content  applies.130  The  -  of  this  o b j e c t of  t o c o n s i d e r the cases i n which the control  government  requirement the  duty  or the circumstances  following discussion is  to  act f a i r l y  rather  has been u s e d  i n c o n s i s t e n c y and t o a s s e s s i t s v a l u e  for  to  that  purpose. The field  is  foundation  v.  Operators'  Liverpool  of  the  use of  Corporation,  Associationl31,  hereafter  the  duty  ex p .  referred  c a s e , which concerned i n f o r m a t i o n  undertaking  p r o v i d e d by a s t a t u t o r y  the 1970  The  number o f it  Corporation, taxi  proposed s u b s t a n t i a l l y to  was o p p o s e d by t h e o p e r a t o r s ' f r o m t h e Town C l e r k representations  that  before  However,  at  chairman of additional  a meeting of the to  full  The  h e l d the  limited  to 3 0 0 , This  but  to  1971  make the  matter  proposed that  a  the  licences  t h e 300 e x i s t i n g o n e s w o u l d be i s s u e d u n t i l  proposed  undertaking  was l a t e r  f r o m t h e Town C l e r k . and w i t h o u t  private put  into  h i r e c a r s had come i n t o writing  Subsequently,  informing  the  in a letter  i n November,  to  the  force.  the  proposal.  f o l l o w i n g month, that  letters  before which  approved  in  proposal  i n f o r m e d by  In J u l y  an u n d e r t a k i n g  of  no  to c o n t r o l  gave  a group  number.  sub-committee later  an  had i n 1948  the c i t y c o u n c i l ,  council  the c o u n c i l  sub-committee  legislation  again,  of  was l e g a l l y r e p r e s e n t e d .  s t a g g e r e d i n c r e a s e , and t h e  to  an o p p o r t u n i t y  any d e c i s i o n was m a d e .  this  Fleet  form of  a s s o c i a t i o n , w h i c h was  i t w o u l d be g i v e n  in  Liverpool  of L i v e r p o o l  increase their  was c o n s i d e r e d by a s u b - c o m m i t t e e association  i n the  authority,  i n the c i t y  Taxi  t o as t h e  public authority  as l i c e n s i n g  cab l i c e n c e s  act f a i r l y  Liverpool  Corporation  citizens.  to  This  the a s s o c i a t i o n sub-committee  a s s o c i a t i o n and d e s p i t e t h e  fact  met that  -  106  -  the  p r o p o s e d l e g i s l a t i o n was n o t y e t  for  an i n c r e a s e i n t h e  by  the c o u n c i l .  Corporation's It policy  a duty  of  to  fairly.  act  the u n d e r t a k i n g  1971  only  it  representations the  Lord Denning  given  f i r s t gave  taxi  was s a t i s f i e d t h a t  it.  In  event,  with  the c o n f l i c t i n g i n t e r e s t s  the  the  the  d e c i s i o n was a c c o r d i n g l y The L i v e r p o o l  non-contractual  The  d i d not  on w h i c h  the  of  bestowing  intention  of  upon  in  August  Even t h e n ,  affected,  according if  public interest" act f a i r l y  to  the  required  in  had t o d e c i d e , and  dealing its  c a s e has been c h a r a c t e r i s e d was h e l d bound by  and he q u e s t i o n s  right  sought  citizens  the u n d e r t a k i n g  depart  any  i n t e r e s t s were  the  legal  the C o r p o r a t i o n  affected  short  it  future  Corporation  i t could  c o n s i d e r a t i o n to  had f a i l e d t o  Corporation  the  rather  the  sub-committee  deny  according t o why  the  summarises the  but  city,  that  Wade i n a d e q u a t e l y  undertaking, to  deciding  quashed.  undertaking,  However,  court  of  c o u l d be d i s r e g a r d e d o n l y  W a d e l 3 3 as one w h e r e a p u b l i c a u t h o r i t y  result.  function  "overriding  Corporation  the  Appeal.  o r b o d i e s whose  Corporation  quashing  adopted  of  chairman of  the u n d e r t a k i n g  proposals  the Court  T h a t d u t y meant  due and p r o p e r  new  p r o p o s a l s were  an o r d e r  a s s o c i a t i o n , m i g h t w i s h to make. M.R.132,  forward  cab l i c e n c e s i n t h e  by t h e  which persons  put  These  in exercising its  number  from  including  licences.  d e c i s i o n , and s u c c e e d e d b e f o r e  the  if  of  association applied for  was h e l d t h a t ,  as t o  was u n d e r  The  number  in force,  to  of  prevent  an o p p o r t u n i t y  should continue the  the c o u r t  to  undertaking to  it  dictate  from  validity the  depart  of  be o b s e r v e d .  any b i n d i n g  that  decision.  from  so d o i n g w i t h o u t  t o make  p o l i c y to  a  b a s i s of to  by  its first  representations This  quality.  falls  as  far  It  was  the C o r p o r a t i o n ,  but  not  -  rather fair  "to  see t h a t  r e g a r d to  Denning M.R. undertaking were  not  all  to  107  whatever  -  policy [it]  the  effect  that  the C o r p o r a t i o n  "overriding  by t h e o t h e r  members o f  be r e g a r d e d o n l y  as d i c t a . 1 3 5  Certainly  In  government  b e i n g made c l e a r t h a t  inconsistent with Corporation  rise  hearing.  takes  Appeal  illegally part-owner policy illegal  the  T h a t was t h e  of  the  the  importance  decision,  otherwise  act  fairly  undertaking  of  treated  itself.  i s s u e as  being accorded  d e c i s i o n a b o u t w h i c h he c o m p l a i n s , of  e a r l i e r government  s u c h as t h e  in i t s a b i l i t y  of of  form of  to give  undertaking rise  to  b a s i s of  the  Hong Kong v . Hong K o n g .  f r o m Macau i n 1976 of a small  of  information  i n the  Liverpool  such  d e c i s i o n of  respondent  that  Council  appeal  they  from  undetected,  I n O c t o b e r 1980 a c h a n g e o f government,  i m m i g r a n t s w o u l d be i n t e r v i e w e d  a  in the  to  the e f f e c t  subsequently  becoming  immigration  i n due c o u r s e a n d , w h i l e  would not  grant  had e n t e r e d Hong Kong  and had r e m a i n e d t h e r e  factory.  c o u l d be g i v e n  a n  may  the  a c t u a l l y to  the Privy  Ng Y u e n S h i u l 3 8 >  The  information  a h e a r i n g i s where  an e x p r e s s u n d e r t a k i n g  was a n n o u n c e d by t h e Hong Kong  guarantees  to  c l e a r e s t c i r c u m s t a n c e i n which government  Attorney General Court  made  its  and a c c o r d i n g l y c a n  i d e n t i f i e d the c r i t i c a l  to a l e g i t i m a t e e x p e c t a t i o n  information  the  Lord  honour  d e c i s i o n s ! 3 6 have  of  and  .137  The give  that  case, lies  expectations  have  required  on t h e d u t y  binding quality  due  comments o f  t h e c i t i z e n had a l e g i t i m a t e e x p e c t a t i o n  a hearing before it  inherent  those d e c i s i o n s , the c o u r t s  being whether  later  after  was o b l i g e d t o  the c o u r t ,  C o r p o r a t i o n c a s e as t u r n i n g  t h a n on any  The  public interest"  adopted  rather  i s adopted  the c o n f l i c t i n g i n t e r e s t s . " 1 3 4  u n l e s s the  the Liverpool  adopts  be  that no  removed  -  from of  the c o l o n y ,  removal  the  after  tribunal  having  sought j u d i c i a l  and s u c c e e d e d b e f o r e  judgment before  on i t s m e r i t s .  reported  on t h e  being i n t e r v i e w e d ,  of  the B o a r d ,  d i s m i s s e d h i s appeal r e v i e w of  the P r i v y  o r body  if  such a h e a r i n g . statement has t h e  the  o r on b e h a l f  decision,  if  the Liverpool  principle,  him to  has p r o m i s e d t o administration  of,  the  it  should act f a i r l y  so l o n g as i m p l e m e n t a t i o n  duty."139  j  n  tne  the  instant case,  the  an o p p o r t u n i t y  discretion order  of  to  put  by t h e D i r e c t o r .  c e r t i o r a r i to  remove  delivering  quash the  removal  hearing  public authority  inconsistent with  or  it  through  which  unfair  His  i s i n the  given  the Privy order.  lordship  authority  i n t e r e s t of  its  good  its statutory  by t h e Hong Kong  respondent  a favourable  its  that  "when a p u b l i c  i n t e r f e r e with  undertaking  Accordingly,  the  being accorded  and s h o u l d i m p l e m e n t  does not  h i s case for  the  has,  g o v e r n m e n t had n o t been i m p l e m e n t e d b e c a u s e t h e given  The  authority  basis that  follow a certain procedure, that  of  c a s e a s an i l l u s t r a t i o n o f  w h i c h he j u s t i f i e d on t h e  a  i s made by a p u b l i c  be d e n i e d s u c h an i n q u i r y .  Corporation  an  m i g h t be b a s e d on some  a c t e d i n a way t h a t w o u l d make i t  good a d m i n i s t r a t i o n f o r  d e c i s i o n to  Lord F r a s e r ,  his interests  A legitimate expectation  or u n d e r t a k i n g by,  officers,  Immigration.  a g a i n s t the o r d e r ,  he has a l e g i t i m a t e e x p e c t a t i o n  duty of making  promise,  affecting  to  until  h e l d t h a t a person i s e n t i t l e d to a f a i r  a decision adversely  official  f o l l o w i n g day  of  the D i r e c t o r ' s Council.  As a r e s u l t  was d e t a i n e d  o r d e r was made a g a i n s t h i m by t h e D i r e c t o r  respondent  cited  respondent  o f f i c e r and,  immigration  him,  -  e a c h c a s e w o u l d be t r e a t e d  t h i s announcement  immigration  108  had n o t  exercise  Council  been  of  granted  an  - 109 -  Attorney General a p p l i e d by t h e F e d e r a l circumstances Corporation matter  Court  than  Department of  it  a Fijian  resigning,  he was i n f o r m e d  was  the  report,  Federal  It  Affairs,  not  to  the  respondent  but  granted  an  " i f you  reappoint  before  him.  The  approval,  this  to  Before will Some Public be  following had g i v e n  his  respect,  the  the  r e v i e w of  of  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n made  that  if  Hong there found to  importance."141 he r e s i g n e d he  an u n b l e m i s h e d r e c o r d . . . I n  r e s p o n d e n t was e n t i t l e d t o  to  the  s u f f i c i e n t to  particular  respondent  an  reappointed.  and w e n t on t o c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r or undertaking  day  earlier  b u t was i n v i t e d  He was n o t  h i s r e s i g n a t i o n was " o f  the  The  Immigration  report,  the  court c i t e d Attorney General  statement In  to  he w o u l d  the c i r c u m s t a n c e s of  w h i c h he d i d .  the Department with  c i r c u m s t a n c e s we t h i n k  clearances.  the  the  illegal  reappointment  the Department of  was " a c l e a r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n  would leave  in  l e a v e now i t  his application for judicial  i n s t a n t c a s e any  respondent  a  had r e s i g n e d when  harbouring  sought  appropriate  facts,  Ng Yuen S h i u w i t h  i n the  as to  leave with a c l e a r r e c o r d . "  He was r e f u s e d a c o p y o f  Court  Liverpool  had been an o f f i c e r  by a s u p e r i o r t h a t  r e l a t i n g to  a legitimate expectation. the  the  the  woman w i t h whom he had f o r m e d an a t t a c h m e n t .  later  h i s v e r s i o n of  Kong v .  respondent  prosecution for  i n f o r m e d him t h a t  resignation.  decision  The  a p o s i t i o n s u b j e c t to  unsatisfactory  The  to  and was i n f o r m e d by an i n t e r v i e w i n g c l e r k t h a t  the c l e r k  give  Cunningham*40,  c o n c e r n e d an e x p r e s s u n d e r t a k i n g  r e s i g n a t i o n and y o u w i l l  e i g h t e e n months  offered  Ng Yuen S h i u h a s s i n c e been  A u s t r a l i a i n Cole v.  and E t h n i c  a criminal  immigrant,  Service,  of  procedure.  Immigration  threatened with  be a normal  Hong K o n g v .  o f w h i c h were m o s t c l o s e l y a n a l a g o u s  case i n that  other  of  those  hold the  reasonable  -  expectation  that  110  -  he w o u l d be a f f o r d e d  answering the a l l e g a t i o n s s h o u l d the towards  him and a s s e r t ( c o n t r a r y  he had l e f t  it  i s clear that  u n d e r t a k i n g w h i c h may g i v e accorded a hearing. undertaking  The  i s not o n l y  of P a r k e r L . J .  ex p .  Khan,143  t o c i t i z e n s g e n e r a l l y by means  the  applicant, child,  for  in exceptional for  that  the  purposes  that  statement of  of  in  v.  of  or  being  upon  an  government  Secretary of  is State  which concerned  information  of  circular  a Home O f f i c e  offer  a child  who was s e t t l e d i n E n g l a n d ,  an e n t r y  application  and t h e  of  an e x p r e s s  guidance  to  from a b r o a d ,  permit a foreign adoption,  letter.  persons i n and s t a t e d child  to  the S e c r e t a r y  the that,  enter  of  State child  p u r p o s e w h e r e c e r t a i n s p e c i f i e d c r i t e r i a were m e t .  applied for  circular  him)  c i r c u m s t a n c e s e x e r c i s e a d i s c r e t i o n to a l l o w a  who l i v e d i n P a k i s t a n .  Secretary  adopt  to  i m m i g r a t i o n r u l e s d i d not  t h e U n i t e d Kingdom  enter  attitude  to a l e g i t i m a t e e x p e c t a t i o n  c i r c u l a r was p u b l i s h e d i n o r d e r  might  its  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n made t o  i n f e r r e d from a statement  by t h e j u d g m e n t  t h e Home D e p a r t m e n t ,  although  the  change  T h a t s u c h an e x p e c t a t i o n may be f o u n d e d  U n i t e d K i n g d o m who w i s h e d t o  to  it  rise  implied into or  demonstrated  provided  department  of  the Department w i t h a b l e m i s h e d r e c o r d . " 1 4 2  But  for  to  a reasonable opportunity  State,  w i s h e d to adopt  He o b t a i n e d  a copy of  clearance c e r t i f i c a t e for entry  who d e c l i n e d t o  and i n s t e a d d e c i d e d t h e  legitimate expectation  State's  the c i r c u l a r  were  the c r i t e r i a  to e n t e r .  d e c i s i o n quashed,  a r i s i n g out  of  the  The  r e f e r r e d to in  criteria.  that  the c i r c u l a r  the  the  a p p l i c a n t sought  contending  terms of  and  The  set out  a p p l i c a t i o n by d i f f e r e n t  c h i l d was a c c o r d i n g l y r e f u s e d l e a v e have t h e S e c r e t a r y of  apply  a relative's  the c h i l d .  clearance o f f i c e r ' s report  The  The to  he had a that  the  - Ill -  criteria  there  a majority squarely d i d not  of  the  Court  of  on t h e a r g u m e n t say  specified  that,  on t h e  infer  learned judge i m p l i e d or  that  Corporation reasoning of  r a i s e d by t h e  applicant.  Although  Secretary  only  after  State  was t o  follows  legitimate  for  so,  then  entitled adhered aspects: followed  to  adopt  In  the  draws  if  interested  to  that  the "a  f a c i n g the  the an  Liverpool  eliminated,  a hearing.  by  government  the  holding  that would  c i r c u l a r , and t h a t  c r i t e r i a he c o u l d do  if  so  persons. e n t a i l i n g the  government.  that  Thus  right  to  i t may  i n h i s c a s e he w i l l as t o why  p r a c t i c e has  be  it  and be  should  i n f e r e n c e s which  conduct.  a r i s e where  T h a t was t h e  the  be  informational  as t o w h a t p r a c t i c e w i l l  the  a  if  p r a c t i c e to c o n t i n u e ;  from  citizen  reader  his application  i n the  representations  government  from p r e v i o u s  of  of  expect  i s p a r t i c u l a r l y l i k e l y to  the g i v i n g  and  He c i t e d t h e  expectation  conduct  t o make  not  ,  Ng Yuen S h i u ,  different  p r a c t i c e i s departed  uncertainty  1 4 5  practice in a particular matter,  such a c a s e the  i s reduced,  expectation  to  by t h e  an o p p o r t u n i t y  to.  legitimately  actually  the  result"  effect.  Hong Kong v .  a person a f f e c t e d  before  that  a legitimate  a regular  s a t i s f i e d that  the c i r c u l a r c o n t a i n e d  the c r i t e r i a s e t out  h e a r i n g may be g e n e r a t e d government  likely  expectation146  according a hearing Furthermore,  being  the c i r c u l a r  and w e n t on t o c o n s i d e r and a p p l y  of  a p p l i c a n t had a r e a s o n a b l e  of  State  by  judgment  t h e c h i l d w o u l d be a l l o w e d i n ,  to  approval,  Attorney General  the S e c r e t a r y  of  basis that  undertaking  be d e c i d e d a c c o r d i n g t o  if  based h i s  t h i s w o u l d be t h e  case with  a p p l i c a t i o n was g r a n t e d  Parker L.J.  p r o c e e d e d on t h e  inferred  His  Appeal.144  c r i t e r i a had been m e t ,  might well  the  s e t o u t w o u l d be a p p l i e d .  Such a  be  he  legitimate  regular practice  case i n Council  of  is  Civil  - 112 -  S e r v i c e Unions government exclude  v.  Minister f o r the C i v i l  decision,  staff  made w i t h o u t  a t Government  m e m b e r s h i p o f any t r a d e approved  exclusion, G.C.H.Q.  i t was f o u n d  House part  that  withdrawing It  this  management  p r a c t i c e gave  of trade  i s apparent  and u n i o n s  from  rise  government  expectations  take  union  If  that  into  account  information  to  disadvantage,  the e f f e c t  advantage  h e a r i n g may be l i m i t e d . opportunity  i t adopts  a government Government  staff  before  the duty  to a c t f a i r l y  a means w h e r e b y  is  the c i t i z e n  or free  t h a t he  from a  be a b l e t o r e q u i r e  government  a p o s i t i o n which w i l l  deprive  disadvantage.149  However,  decision f o r f a i l u r e to accord a  i s o b l i g e d t o a l l o w t h e c i t i z e n an  t o make r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s ,  It  The  l e d him l e g i t i m a t e l y t o e x p e c t  reaching a decision inconsistent with h a s done s o .  of s t a f f .  w i t h w h i c h i t has p r e v i o u s l y  o r s u b j e c t him to t h a t  of overturning  important  in i t s decision-making the  the c i t i z e n w i l l  a c c o r d him a h e a r i n g b e f o r e  him o f t h a t  association  t o an o b l i g a t i o n on t h e  w o u l d be e i t h e r e n t i t l e d t o a p a r t i c u l a r a d v a n t a g e particular  from  membership.148  these cases that  g e n e r a t e d by i n f o r m a t i o n  supplied him.  staff  about  by c o n s u l t i n g G . C . H . Q .  i n c e r t a i n circumstances of p r o v i d i n g  may compel  (G.C.H.Q.)  to  t h e r e was an e s t a b l i s h e d p r a c t i c e a t  to a c t f a i r l y  the b e n e f i t  concerned,  On an a p p l i c a t i o n t o q u a s h t h e  and c o n d i t i o n s o f e m p l o y m e n t  held that  o f government  Headquarters  than a departmental  director.  i n the terms  of Lords  capable  Communications  o f c o n s u l t a t i o n between  alterations  c o n s u l t a t i o n of the s t a f f  union other  by t h e G . C . H . Q .  S e r v i c e 1 4 ? , which concerned a  but i t i s not precluded i t s original  from  information  " m u s t make up i t s own m i n d w h a t p o l i c y  once  i t wishes  to  it  -  follow;  but  before  Where g o v e r n m e n t after  must  so i t m u s t a c t f a i r l y  disclaims information  rely  that  relation  to  Yuen S h i u ,  him,  it  all  concerned."150 to a  citizen  removal  order  was n o t e x p r e s s l y  case lay  asked at h i s  recorded.  T h i s w o u l d have  i t was a c c e p t e d t h a t  of  a small  in  quashing the  impress employer  ask  factory.  In  initial  the D i r e c t o r rather  of  than  use of  the  i n f o r m a t i o n may buy  remain  fact  the  "that  to  words,  if  the  d e c i s i o n to  remove  Immigration  with  unimpeachable,  duty  to  them t i m e ,  act f a i r l y  to  the  to  as  his  case  part-owner  having  succeeded  failed  that  to  he was an subject  Consequently,  by c i t i z e n s m i s l e d by  and an o p p o r t u n i t y  say  attention  be made t h e  order.  the  the  he was  information  removal  factual  unnecessary."I52  subsequently  to  Ng  answer  state  which  respondent, him,  is  respondent]  and h i s  been  that  he c o u l d e x p e c t  time  [the  the D i r e c t o r ' s  fact  This  narrow  anything  in his favour  from b r i n g i n g  in  Hong Kong v .  opportunity  q u e s t i o n was t h e  other  that,  may  u n l a w f u l n e s s of  i n Hong K o n g ? 1  only matter  an e m p l o y e e ,  a s e c o n d , and t h i s  successful  the  that  below,  p r o c e e d i n g s w o u l d have  had been p r e v e n t e d  f a i l u r e to  court  been an a d e q u a t e  been done t h e s e  of  of  there  information.  i n t e r v i e w . . . 1 have y o u  s h o u l d be a l l o w e d t o  and had t h i s  i s granted,  upon an e x t r e m e l y  s i m p l y i n the  t o why y o u  by t h e  its original  c l a r i t y by A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l  emphasied i n the  in that  a hearing  the  reasonableness  persuade government  the d e c i s i o n i n which r e s t e d  As B a b e r J .  f a i r n e s s or  Even where  should adhere to  stark  basis.  respondent  the  the c i t i z e n can say to  demonstrated with  of  to  e a r l i e r provided  upon a c h a l l e n g e t o  inconsistent d e c i s i o n . 1 5 1  be l i t t l e  Yet  -  a c c o r d i n g him a h e a r i n g and c o n s i d e r i n g h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s ,  citizen the  doing  113  government  to argue a g a i n s t  a  -  departure lasting  from  that  may a p p e a r  information,  but  u l t i m a t e l y may  point  It  view of  and v a l u e s  decisions  i s a task  great merit  of  the  government  are for  attack  breach of  that  duty  made,  i t s content.  procedure,  not  government the  information  To  not  But  duty  that  i s to  attack  The  substance.  duty Its  representations, But, the  scope o f  the  ability  t o make w h a t i t  once a g a i n ,  their of  the  powers. duty  government  information,  The  of  effect  compelling  takes  the  that  fairly  the  to  no  it  previously  for  t h e manner act  the c o u r t s .  b a s i s of  i n which the  fairly  alleged  d e c i s i o n was with  i s to e n s u r e  of  their  decision-maker,  c o n s i d e r s to  fairly  grant  to  shape of  that  a hearing  provided  to  an u n d e r t a k i n g  assist  having  heard  before  - express,  prevent  departing  where  power.  those  decision. exceed  a citizen misled  i s to  to  i m p l i e d or  on  by  principle. the c o u r t  from  from  do so w o u l d  Where t h e  by  before  i s a second l i m i t a t i o n  the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l  citizens,  a  interests  be an a p p r o p r i a t e  there  context  that  i n t e r e s t s may be a f f e c t e d  in support  Accordingly, act  The  departures  an  i s concerned  purpose  t h o s e whose  the  which  government  to c o n t r o l  d e c i s i o n on t h e  to  determining  i s e n t i r e l y compatible with  l i m i t a t i o n s on g o v e r n m e n t ' s  form of  of  this  disinterested  d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s c a n n o t be a l l o w e d t o  i n the  to  act  the most  reflected in  to  principle in this  government  information  is for  task  and n o t  d e c i s i o n t o make r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s it  the by o r  essential  decision-maker permits  i s not  alone,  i s that  a government  a d e c i s i o n i s reached;  his  t o be p r o m o t e d  use o f  argument.  override  s e c u r e them  t h e c i t i z e n who has been m i s l e d ,  has been a r g u e d 1 5 3  interests  statutory  of  t o be a g r a v e w e a k n e s s .  perspective.  its  -  benefit. From t h e  from  114  information  inferred  -  -  actually  to  grant  principle will discretion  to  expectation  a hearing,  be o f  be o f  hearing  It  before  honour.  If  government  in ordinary  the  duty  greatest  a statement  procedure.  operation  of  the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l  Cases w i l l  Thus i t  be few i n w h i c h  i s clear that  a  b e i n g a c c o r d e d a h e a r i n g may a r i s e e v e n when  accordance with  form of  the  hold a hearing e x i s t s .  of  accordingly  -  l i m i t e d importance.  duty concerned i s not in  115  or  to  circumstances required  act  importance  undertaking  w o u l d be s t r a n g e departing  fairly.  from  if  The  1 5 4  in relation  information  which i t  the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e operates f r o m b e i n g bound  outside  the  scope of  prevent  government  accord a hearing  by e s t o p p e l  i t s powers  from being  to  affected  to  to  persons  the  before  duty  hold  which  to  departing  a  prevent  it  lies  must o p e r a t e to  the  lawfully  effectively  it  in  than  to  cannot  information  implement,155  r e q u i r e d by  other  were o b l i g e d  or  will  information  concerning a matter government  power  be e x e r c i s e d  principle to  legitimate  the  to  no  act  also  fairly  from  to  to  such  information. A further impact of  the  factor  doctrine  a c i t i z e n m i s l e d by upon h i s a b i l i t y  of  w h i c h must agency.  information  to demonstrate  someone a u t h o r i s e d by g o v e r n m e n t raised  i n any  provided remains argument  of  the  to  unauthorised  It  information  value  of  the  from a government that to  the  date the  duty  it. that  act  fairly  the  has  information his authority,  by been  was and  a d o p t when s u c h an  w o u l d c e r t a i n l y be p o s s i b l e f o r i n c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s to  them t o  generate  a  to  dependent  was p r o v i d e d  No a r g u m e n t  scope of  the c o u r t s w i l l  to  potential  s o u r c e may be  information  provide  acting outside  be s e e n w h a t a t t i t u d e  is raised.  The  c a s e s d e c i d e d to  by an o f f i c e r  be c o n s i d e r e d i s t h e  permit  it  -  legitimate express  expectation  undertaking  seniority,  the  who i n f a c t  lacks  authority  to  c a n be r a i s e d .  o f f i c e r wrongly i s not  potentially  if  affected  unauthorised  they  that  the c o u r t s w i l l  where  by so d o i n g t h e y  legitimate difficult  generated  the  circular  "helpful  to  ground  there  set  adopt  the of  some  that  if  a  a particular  he p o s s e s s e s  act,  that  in ordinary  circumstances  t h o s e whose  interests  t o an o b l i g a t i o n  the  are  of  in every  c a s e be a b l e  provided  to  v.  Secretary  where W a t k i n s  L.J.  prospective a legitimate of  of  adopters,  State  adopted  reasonable  him,  to  establish  he e n j o y e d  State  for  be  t h e Home ground  intended merely  that  a  T h a t t h i s may  and c o n t a i n e d  expectation  be  application  to  d i s s e n t e d on t h e was  i s to  information.  being accorded a hearing. by  its  these  The  and i t  protection  government  the  hardship.  to  it  consider  d i f f i c u l t y with  approach  a measure  to  because of  to c r e a t e  a flexible  information  the Secretary out.  perform  i s a f l e x i b l e one,  p u b l i s h e d by t h e Home O f f i c e  accorded before those  it  potential  t h e c i t i z e n must  to  to  an  strong  is authority  However,  by u n a u t h o r i s e d  Khan,  guide"157  sufficient  the  expectation  i s demonstrated ex p .  of  subject  can a f f o r d  expectation  Department,  to  officers.  have  hoped  as a r e s u l t o f  But  of  m a k i n g a d e c i s i o n on a p a r t i c u l a r m a t t e r ,  its  a legitimate  Finally,  it.  a p a r t i c u l a r c i t i z e n merely  concept of  expectations  i s not  be where  by an o f f i c e r  assume t h a t  representations  a c t i o n s of  i s that  to  government  before  of  Thus t h e r e  entitled  unjustifiable  representations  give  assumes a u t h o r i t y  thereby  Again,  may be t h o u g h t  that,  candidate might  i s given  to c o n s i d e r the  arguments  a strong  a hearing  authority.156  the  a hearing;  grant  citizen  obliged  -  to  counter-arguments government  of  116  as a  nothing  a hearing would  any c r i t e r i a  that  other  be than  -  3.  117  -  Abuse Of D i s c r e t i o n : Substantive F a i r n e s s , Relevant C o n s i d e r a t i o n s And The  government citizens the  Reasonableness  p o s s i b i l i t y of  overturning  d e c i s i o n s which depart  has r e c e i v e d g r e a t e r  same p u r p o s e  of  the duty  from  for  abuse of  information  academic r e c o g n i t i o n to  act  fairly.158  e a r l i e r provided  to  than  for  approval  remarkably  recent.  The government decision The  of  are E n g l i s h ,  first in  itself  the  Court  called  Exchequer.  of  In  its  returns Act  o f J u n e 1973  it  the  this  way.  opinion  From J u n e  calculating its  determining  the  Commission took The  plaintiff  granted it  by t h e  was t h e  an a b u s e o f  in H.T.V.  Ltd.  that 1974  the view  duty of  profit the  margin  v.  the the  to  plaintiff plaintiff  level that  of  the  unit  Appeal.  part  Price  was  levy  All  the Commission to  obliged  (IBA)  p a s s e d on t o  treated  this  to  took  output,  the  to the  i t was,  t h r e e members  of  part  plaintiff  that  the  levy  into  the  and t h e  as  figure.  levy  was n o t a c o s t f o r  under  profit  treat  for  make  the  levy  at a f i n a l  was r i g h t  of  the  the P r i c e Commission  arrive  also  of  Commission.159  in  account  purpose  i t s advertising charges.  a declaration that of  been  contractor,  IBA  to  plaintiff  in order  c o s t s per  permitted  Court  it  which the  in  d i s c r e t i o n came i n  the P r i c e Commission informed  total  sought  of  have  Broadcasting Authority  levy,  1973,  i t s c o s t s and d e d u c t e d  was o f  to  use  the cases  i n c o n s i s t e n c y on t h e  Independent  the Exchequer  By l e t t e r  in  Appeal  the  the C o u n t e r - I n f l a t i o n of  amount  are  w h i c h was a t e l e v i s i o n programme  contracts with  payments  and a l l  indication that  might  plaintiff,  under  All  has t h e  However,  w h i c h t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y has r e c e i v e d j u d i c i a l few.  discretion  of  The  that  purpose.  d e c l a r a t i o n was  the c o u r t  a c t c o n s i s t e n t l y and f a i r l y  held in  that its  -  dealings with manufacturers acknowledged estopped  qualification  that  statutory  duty.  there  i s no p r e s s i n g p u b l i c i n t e r e s t  acted for  act u n f a i r l y  had p r e v i o u s l y levy  as p r o p e r l y  the purpose of  duty to  that  of  i n c l u d e d i n the  importance of  c o s t s per u n i t  from a p r o c e d u r a l  case lay  to  relevant  account a l l  form a ground of j u d i c i a l implications  of  review  the case f o r  the  for  abuse of  present  decision inconsistent with  government  to a c i t i z e n  review  information. far duty  failure  its  The  effects  act f a i r l y , to  departure duty  s i m p l y by v i r t u e  more e x t e n s i v e to  to  is potentially  than for  those of the  output. of  the  requirement.  discretion.  failure  purpose,  The  d i s c u s s i o n are c l e a r :  a  e a r l i e r provided  open t o c h a l l e n g e by way inconsistency with  by  of  that  from  overturning  a decision for  breach of  u n l a w f u l n e s s would l i e not merely i n t e r e s t e d persons, but  i t s own i n f o r m a t i o n .  a c t f a i r l y would t r u l y  information.  its  as a c o s t  o f a s u c c e s s f u l c h a l l e n g e w o u l d o f c o u r s e be  a c c o r d a h e a r i n g to by g o v e r n m e n t  of  had  unreasonableness,  information  when  the  it  levy  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s and i m p r o p e r  government  judicial  treated  the  of  the  in i t s elevation  to a s u b s t a n t i v e  unfairness could, like  into  of  the  citizen  plaintiff's costs, treat  be  i s a misuse  Since  1 6 1  regularity  I n c o n s i s t e n c y l e a d i n g to take  and i t  it."  i n r e f u s i n g to  the H . T . V .  cannot  i s s u b j e c t to  a private  to warrant  calculating total  act f a i r l y  towards  and as a m a t t e r  i n c o n s i s t e n t l y and u n f a i r l y  The  "But  or u n j u s t l y  M.R.  public authority  i t must not m i s u s e i t s p o w e r s :  for  Exchequer  i_0rd Denning  a statutory  power  Commission  to  its  -  and t r a d e r s . 1 6 0  the p r i n c i p l e t h a t  from doing  it  118  have  the e f f e c t  of  i n the  in  the  the  very  Used i n t h i s w a y , h o l d i n g government  the to  -  However, litigation, academic  being a t f i r s t  speculation.  Lord Denning  both  clear  normally  the law w i l l  restrictions policy. The  upon  powers  of d e c i s i o n .  little  procedural  preferring  Preston166,  i n which  i n R^ v .  the H.T.V.  c a s e a r o s e o u t o f a r e q u e s t made Investigation  in  those  a company  Section  i n order  particular  concern  return  from  to concentrate  threaten.  would government  reason t h a t  returns,  t o change  later  with  courts  a  on i t s  Inland  from  i n which the a p p l i c a n t  by t h e I n l a n d  were  f o r the settlement  The  of the S p e c i a l  f o r two e a r l i e r y e a r s .  the claims f o r tax r e l i e f  certain  transactions  had h e l d h a l f  furnishing  Revenue,  and a p p l i e d .  ex  Revenue f o r a m e e t i n g w i t h t h e  of correspondence,  after  of the  Revenue C o m m i s s i o n e r s ,  i n 1 9 7 8 by an i n s p e c t o r  of the Inland  which arose  as a r e s u l t  c a s e was a p p r o v e d  to the i n s p e c t o r  the a p p l i c a n t ,  required  to  to a c t f a i r l y  to d i s c u s s h i s tax r e t u r n s  T h e r e was an e x c h a n g e that  instead  s i t u a t i o n may be e x p e c t e d  o f t h e House o f L o r d s  applicant  the duty  it  and c h a n g e i t s  employed  t o remove  for this  made  1 6 5  substantive  case appeared there  Ltd. v.  aspects. This  decision  to place  actually  i n c l i n a t i o n to i n v e s t  i t i n R^ v .  and Lawton L . J .  1 6 4  to a c t f a i r l y  I t was p e r h a p s  application,  followed  But i n Laker Airways  not operate  like estoppel,  of  to the realm of  o f government to f o r m u l a t e  of the duty  be a b l e ,  substantive  p.  L.J.  an e x p l o s i o n  largely  M.R. himself  Roskill  the a b i l i t y  version  potentially  showed  confined  T h a t was p r e c i s e l y w h a t t h e H . T . V .  novel  its  to generate  C o u n c i l , ex p . B r o w n . 1 6 2  Department o f T r a d e l 6 3 , that  -  the d e c i s i o n f a i l e d  i t s impact  Basildon D i s t r i c t  119  certain  relevant  would withdraw  by t h e I n l a n d  made  i n the shares  of the share  and e v e n t u a l l y  Of  of  capital.  i t was a g r e e d information  his claims for r e l i e f i n  Revenue o f h i s t a x l i a b i l i t y f o r  -  the  relevant  the  share  of  a tax  taxpayer  it  which  i t was t o o  late  sought  declaration further  in  He  of  have r e g a r d  before  to  to  court,  regard  to  all  relevant  officer  of  stage  necessary  the  the  of  Revenue  received  transactions  information  and f r a n k .  In  had by  1982,  which  by  Income a n d C o r p o r a t i o n  Taxes  R e v e n u e was  by t h e  applicant.  decision, not  seeking  entitled  to  been  provided  tax  this  Woolf J . 1 6 8 , s.  460 t h e  fairness  of  taking  the  decision  the  events  This  the  relief, Act  The  inter  assess  to of  into  assess whether or  that  alia  a  him  "Whereas  impossible what i t  account not  to  the at  take  deciding  Revenue was  that course.  i s s u e the 1978,  in  Inland  s.  which  it  to  at a l a t e r  of  their  stage  a particular  into to  date f o r for  an a  the  Revenue  conduct  when i t course  had  Revenue  take open  is possible  a later  the  460 n o t i c e  i s not  results  On  the I n l a n d  amounted to a f a i l u r e  be e x e r c i s e d ,  be t a k e n  who h e l d  under  considerations.  to  taxpayer  t o make h i s c l a i m s f o r  behave i n such a manner t h a t  have t o to  460 o f  Revenue t o make i t  discretion  the  full  applicant  the  account  one  share  the  into  shares.  as i r r e l e v a n t .  to  the  review  had t r e a t e d  do i s  that  issue a notice  the  b e e n made w i t h o u t  to  suspect  succeeded before  obliged  statutory  Inland  advantage gained  the  not  material  tax  Inland  whether or to  s.  judicial  respect  the  the  under  t h a t the  1979  than  inquiries  t h a t agreement  In  less  for  1970167 c a n c e l l i n g t h e  r a i s e no f u r t h e r  scheme and t h a t  had been  issued a notice  applicant  to  avoidance  to  r e l i a n c e upon  relief.  led i t  i n 1978  -  agreement  In  his claims for  information  time  and i t s  transactions.  withdrew  part  years  120  at  becomes  of  conduct."169 This governing  abuse  i s a much more o r t h o d o x of  discretion  than  that  application represented  of  the  principles  by t h e H . T . V .  case.  -  It  does  not  elevate  inconsistency abuse of  omission amount to  on t h e  part  do so -  whatever  to a f a i l u r e  discretion  the  account before of  take  first  to  circumstances inquiries.  control  account a relevant  of  the content  synonymous  with  outrageous  in  duty  it  stops  in j u d i c i a l  arrived  to  s.  abuse  of  act f a i r l y ,  to  are  short  go f u r t h e r .  taken  of  able  If  to o v e r t u r n  460 n o t i c e on t h e  represents  Revenue's  a deeper  of  For  government  of  1 7 0  i t . "  assessments of  1 7 1  the  so  into  asserting  the  he was wrong the  it  ground  ,  that  nothing further  penetration  into  one w h i c h s t i l l  has a l r e a d y  There i s , of irrationality  course,  the  the respects  Unreasonableness  a c c e p t e d moral the  in  t o be  scope f o r  or outrageousness  of  is  "so  standards  question  out  low degree  and a p p l i e s t o a d e c i s i o n  l o g i c or of  the  been p o i n t e d  a relatively  decisions.  on  Inland  initiate  d e c i s i o n , but  reasonableness exerts  defiance  at  to  and  others.  no s e n s i b l e p e r s o n who had a p p l i e d h i s m i n d t o c o u l d have  consideration,  the concept of  l i k e the  felt  "irrationality"  its  words,  but  decision-making r o l e .  requirement over  will  the  j u s t i f y i n g a d e c i s i o n to  Inland  which  resulting decision -  of  had been e x e r c i s e d u n r e a s o n a b l y ,  approach  the  the Revenue's the  1982  This  substance of  that  of  an  content  was p r e p a r e d  issue i t  that  Its  all  i s s u e the  constitutes  as a f a c t o r  the p a r t i c u l a r c i t i z e n  he n o n e t h e l e s s  so  decision-making.  other  c i t i z e n over  d e c i s i o n to  discretion  In  fairness  duty,  its  a d e c i s i o n i s made;  point,  Revenue's  into  a substantive  account during  this context,  But Woolf J . his  the  of  automatically  treats  into  i n t e r e s t s of  that  level  government  discretion.  i s able in  that  interests  to  the  rather  to t a k e  to  -  to  of  i s bound  an a b u s e o f  ensure  fairness  d i s c r e t i o n , but  government  121  that decided  differences of  -  particular  government  122  d e c i s i o n s , but  r e a s o n a b l e n e s s i n t o a means o f decisions. judicial  Moreover,  process.  requirement of  of  review in  Even a l l o w i n g f o r  by t h e c o u r t s  refrain  from  such d i f f e r e n c e s  of  government  review or otherwise  standard  of  Inland  dismissed  careful  Revenue  was r e a s o n a b l e  the  events  that  of  1978  the C o u r t paragraph  d e c i s i o n of  i n l i g h t of  d i s c l o s u r e of  argument  appeal  the  the  f a i l u r e of  itself  the  the  decision-making standard its  that  for  role  the  application  the c o u r t s  through  absence of  of  approaches,  As s u c h ,  argument172  should  estoppel,  an o b j e c t i v e  or  accepted  not  matters  held that  taxpayer  a duty of  fairness.  duty merely  was s u c c e s s f u l l y a p p e a l e d  Appeal,173 arguments Inland  facts. Inland  to  the  speech177,  that  the  the  those  attribute  where Lawton  L.J.  Revenue  to  issue a s .  d e c i s i o n of  before  the 1 7 8  to  to  take  House  into  of  notice a  address  the  account  the  of  Appeal,  Revenue  owes  had d e a l t  to  each  His at  in  perform  a  some  the  individual  can c o m p l a i n o f  d e c i d e s to  the  Lords.176  L o r d Templeman,  no t a x p a y e r  because the Revenue  460  It  discretion.  their Lordships  Inland  1 7 4  t o make  d i d not  the Court  the  principle.  But  court  Revenue  an a b u s e o f  further,  of  The  1 7 5  by  r a i s e d by t h e a p p l i c a n t .  a p p l i c a n t ' s o m i s s i o n i n 1978  the  leading  of  the  amounted  was d i s m i s s e d , b u t important  of  relevant  appealed the m a t t e r  length with  to  a coherent  Woolf J .  the  the  Dissatisfied with applicant  judicial  decisions.  i n the  d e c i s i o n of  to  in a brief  was h e l d t h a t  full  divergent  of  of  assessment.  The the  -  the concept  on t h e m e r i t s  such d e c i s i o n s - whether  judicial  turn  a r e an i n e v i t a b l e  providing  i s compatible with  reviewing  s u c h as t o  p o s e s no t h r e a t  and i s c a p a b l e o f  this context  not  p a s s i n g judgment  reasonableness  government,  -  a  breach  statutory  - 123 -  duty way  or to e x e r c i s e a s t a t u t o r y of j u d i c i a l  applicant  complains  on t o c o n s i d e r turning the  review  upon  amounts  an e r r o r  had n o t m i s c o n s t r u e d and u n f a i r l y ' . "  1 8 0  as s u g g e s t i n g  amounting  injunction  other  appellant by  contract ambit is  He c o n t i n u e d :  the [ I n l a n d Revenue]  i f that  remedy  which conduct which representation circumstances by j u d i c i a l  to j u d i c i a l  f o r which  of breach  i n which  the court  notwithstanding  that  review  for 'unfairness'  i n the case o f  of a d e c i s i o n  taken  to t h e a p p e l l a n t  i s equivalent  to a breach  of  w i t h i n the  case j u d i c i a l  review  T h e r e may be c a s e s i n  o f power;  which  there  savours  In t h e p r e s e n t to r e l i e f  t o abuse  t o an  by  of conduct [ s i c ] or breach  is entitled  amounting  'unfairness'  s e e no r e a s o n why t h e  i n the present  conduct  consider  the appellant  of  i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n might  or breach of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n .  the H.T.V.  Such a d e c i s i o n f a l l s  an a b u s e  contract  'inconsistently  or estoppel  review  remedy.  Commission  the appellant  decision i s unfair  does n o t c o n s t i t u t e  review  entitle  "In principle I  and an a p p r o p r i a t e savours  the Price  interpreted  of contract  or a breach of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n .  the sole  also  o f t h e [ I n l a n d Revenue]  o f an a b u s e o f power  "If  R e v e n u e was " g u i l t y  b a s e d on b r e a c h  went  misconstrued  n o t have a c t e d  authority,  s h o u l d n o t be e n t i t l e d  because the conduct  to enforce.  i f . . . [ i t s ] conduct would,  a Crown  by  of which t h e  His Lordship  the P r i c e Commission  h i s Lordship  o f power  than  can i n t e r v e n e  c a s e , w h i c h he e x p l a i n e d a s  they would  that the Inland  o r damages  representation."181  intending  However,  of p o w e r . 1 7 9  the H.T.V.  the code,  t o an a b u s e  an a u t h o r i t y  t o an a b u s e  of l a w whereby  t h e y were  the courts  i f s a t i s f i e d that the unfairness  i n some d e t a i l  code which  case  only  discretion;  of  may be  not grant  relief  of breach  of  case,  however,  by way o f  judicial  o f power  i f the [Inland  I  -  Revenue  has]  breach of the  been g u i l t y  Revenue The  is  that  stated  it  on [ i t s ]  or  representation to  of  statutory  duty or  case,  i n the  namely  e x e r c i s e of  constituting  an a b u s e o f  review.  d e c i s i o n a l s o makes  against  The the  duty of  power  t h e House  Indeed,  Templeman  appears  requirements  to  relate  the  c o n c e p t s f a m i l i a r from p r i v a t e  by r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . 1 8 5 judicial  review  satisfaction flexibility control  will  of of  for  This  substantive  duty of  be l o s t .  In  fairness  estoppel  w o u l d be u n n e c e s s a r i l y t o  restrict  the  remainder relevant  of  use of  that  speech,  happily  tie  perpetuate  doctrine against  his Lordship's  correspondence,  to  Lords  to  in  Preston  proposition  first  performance  for  for  in his  of  a breach of  If  contract the  law,  the  the the  a of  judicial offend to  speech L o r d the duty and  to  estoppel  availability upon  of  the  potential  for  duty to  administrative the  doctrine  of  t e c h n i c a l i t i e s which  government.  However,  i n c l u d i n g h i s a n a l y s i s of  fails  it  the  or e q u i v a l e n t  as an i n s t r u m e n t  particular,  of  i s made d e p e n d e n t  private  for  i s p o s s i b l e to  breach of  unfairness  i n t r i c a t e concepts of the  it  is unsatisfactory.  construction  a ground  a t one p o i n t  law of  analysed  d i s c r e t i o n i s capable  f a i r n e s s by c o n d u c t c o n s t i t u t i n g  a representation.!84  then  or  1 8 3  i n the  providing  c l e a r that  contract  unfair  law the  a statutory  breach of  the  notice.  unfairness  and so o f it  Lordship  on i t s t r u e  for English  that  a breach of  w h i c h made i t  d e c i s i o n of  doubt  to His  i s s u e a s . 460  the  e s t a b l i s h e s beyond  i n the H.T.V.  part."182  concluding that  subsequently importance  -  conduct equivalent  correspondence,  c o n t a i n e d no a g r e e m e n t Inland  of  representations  relevant  124  f o l l o w up h i s  the  the  earlier  suggestion. L o r d Templeman  took  c a r e to  indicate that  t h e r e may a r i s e c a s e s  - 125 -  i n which conduct representation power,  or  savouring  of  a breach  i s h e l d not  to  amount t o  i n which  notwithstanding  the  court  conduct  significance  apply,  value-laden.  at  a relatively  order  of  to  It  There  the  so,  the  duty of  does  decision-making  the  a p p l i c a n t complains  conflict  with  decision  on t h e  interests the  courts  role.  h i s own.  role  ground of  encountered  such a c a s e , unfairness  appears  that  the  by  when  principle. safeguard  and  will  In  the  a means to  prove  of  the  of  that  for  or  the  the c o u r t s  or w i l l  be f o r the  ensuring  If  to  a  this  that  government  overturn  of  which the to  competing  difficulty  by c i t i z e n s  of  which  them e f f e c t i v e l y priority  is  the  secure i n t e r e s t s to  to  which  hold  in response  to which they developed  the  the  lie  in  case of the  duty of  d i s c r e t i o n of  in  the  d e c i s i o n of  i s p r e c i s e l y the attempts  review,  lead  control.  pitch  the  by  courts  of  greatest  recognition  the  duty  a d e c i s i o n which  deprive  do where  promote  This  of  of  of  of  Lordship  i t s powers  judicial  would  faced with  1 8 9  that  determining  in society.  g o v e r n m e n t bound by e s t o p p e l , duty/discretion  i t might to  His  they e x e r c i s e over  effectively  In  government,  represented  develop  designed  an a b u s e  t h e medium o f j u d i c i a l  of  is  of  out188  represents  boundaries  This  complains  of  relief  limitations  government of  fairness  operate  a breach  and so t o  they w i l l  which  suppose  need t o  not  its  rob  to  of  the  courts w i l l  fairness  the  that  pointed  the c o n t r o l  i s no r e a s o n  reappraisal  usurp  been  t h a t t h e y do n o t  dramatic  duty of  discretionary  applicant  has a l r e a d y  of  such u n f a i r n e s s . 1 8 7  is likely the  or  unfairness,  government d e c i s i o n s through  House o f L o r d s of  then  it  low l e v e l  ensure  decision.  but  i n c a s e s where  is  content  these  contract  discretion refuses  constituting  g a v e no i n d i c a t i o n o f when f a i r n e s s might  in i t s  of  the  fairness,  it  the c o u r t s  to  - 126 -  refuse  to c l a s s i f y a breach of  relief  for  rise  to  representation  acknowledged u n f a i r n e s s . 1 9 0  no s u c h p r o b l e m .  The  effect  d e c i s i o n w o u l d have been s i m i l a r t o Robertson  v.  M i n i s t e r of  spread i n minute b e i n g borne minimal  proportions  by t h e  harm t o  fairness,  d e c i s i o n of  heads of  a c c e p t e d by W o o l f J . overlooked,  t h e House  conceivable government  that  review  that  However,  it  as t h e y  upon w h i c h g o v e r n m e n t  of  Lords  been  those  of  about  the  to  than  applicant,  usurping  the  on t h e  ground  that  potential  The  succeeded before i n R^  were  c o n c e n t r a t e s on t h e d u t y  the  arguments  r a i s e d at  i s important  first  that  providing  refuse  to  overturn  a p p l i c a n t , b u t m i g h t be p r e p a r e d  process.  facts  a b s e n c e o f more  anxiety  are c a p a b l e of  the c o u r t s might  w h i c h was n o t  the  in  i n g e n e r a l , as opposed  founded  i n s t a n c e and  alternative  for  v.  Thus i t  o f w h i c h have  taken  into  is further of  State  already  grounds is  unfairness  the  review  a  earlier  same  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n was a m a t e r i a l account  in this context  Woolf J .  Secretary  the  to o v e r t u r n  of  upon  t h e s e heads of  i n c o n s i s t e n c y may be c h a l l e n g e d .  consideration  L.J.  in the  gave  Revenue's  t h e l o s s w o u l d have  taxpayers  feel  itself  d e c i s i o n which i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n  the  decision  Preston  refuse  a l l o w i n g the e s t o p p e l  is,  and c o n t a i n s no c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f  more o r t h o d o x  made t o  of  i n t e r e s t s which c o n f l i c t e d with the c o u r t to  to  quashing the I n l a n d  that the  facts,  or  decision-making r o l e . The  are not  of  applicant a l o n e . 1 9 1  t h e r e was no r e a s o n f o r Revenue's  over  on i t s  that  Pensions;  as u n f a i r ,  for  of  the  i n the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g s o r t s of  argument  i l l u s t r a t e d by t h e j u d g m e n t t h e Home D e p a r t m e n t ,  been s e t o u t .  Although  ex p .  that  which of  Dunn  Khan192,  c a s e was  -  treated of  both  by t h e  procedural  content that,  of  f a i r n e s s , Dunn L . J .  State  review,  unreasonable. the  of  to  leave  decision.  to  enter  The  on t h e  and h i s e x e r c i s e o f  l e a r n e d judge  the U n i t e d Kingdom,  "Although  the  set out  be t a k e n  that  circular  therein  the  d i d not  benefit  i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n , and t h e n  he...  acted  However,  the  reasonableness a r e s u l t of otiose which very  for is  of  applicants  role  impact i n t h i s  r e c o g n i t i o n of  a c i t i z e n to  argue  ground of  which  that  by g o v e r n m e n t it  of  not  absolute.  in  its  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g the  what i t  that  r e a c h e d h i s d e c i s i o n on  to  the  In  so d o i n g  requirement  s u f f i c i e n t to  the  into  duty  like  in  of  fact  provided  r e g a r d s as an a p p r o p r i a t e  inconsistent with  The  that  that  it  decision is  render  reason i s that afforded  that  information does  the  to  all to  play of  a  those  protection to  take  act  into  has a l r e a d y  s o , government  that  unfair.  arguments  by t h e d u t y  government  be  t o h i m , when  requirement  as  unreasonable  the d e c i s i o n  f a i r n e s s i n the  decision,  information.  i t will  a c c o u n t may be e x p e c t e d  of  that  For  e a r l i e r provided  may a t m o s t r e q u i r e  the c i t i z e n ;  fairness.  a government  information.  i s a b l e to a f f o r d , It  duty of  r e v i e w b a s e d upon t h e  is  provided  the  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s be t a k e n  s u b s i d i a r y to  misled  area of  information  inconsistency is i t s e l f  relevant  the  i s l i k e l y t o be c o n s i d e r a b l y d i m i n i s h e d , a f t e r P r e s t o n ,  the  the  to  unreasonably."193  inconsistent with  Moreover,  the  c r e a t e an e s t o p p e l ,  a c o n s i d e r a t i o n w h i c h on h i s own s h o w i n g was i r r e l e v a n t . my j u d g m e n t  held  d i s c r e t i o n had b e e n  letter  for  issue  substantive  had e x e r c i s e d a d i s c r e t i o n w h i c h was s u b j e c t  Home S e c r e t a r y  matters  as t u r n i n g on t h e  concentrated rather  State's  i n r e f u s i n g the c h i l d  judicial  -  a p p l i c a n t and W a t k i n s L . J . J ,  the S e c r e t a r y  S e c r e t a r y of  127  is  account  been  is free  e v e n one w h i c h  fairly,  to  reach  - 128 -  It review  i s important  to  bear  upon w h i c h t h e a g g r i e v e d c i t i z e n  by u s i n g t h e medium o f j u d i c i a l escape the o p e r a t i o n too,  that  the  government  effectively  to  difficulties information by  that  That i s ,  the  of  fact  nor can i t  be a r e l e v a n t  To  in this context, provided without  too.  of It  authority  the  be s i m i l a r t o  a finding  by a g o v e r n m e n t  the  d o c t r i n e of  of  the duty to a c t f a i r l y .  difficult  to  that  a g e n c y on t h e u s e t o  a g e n c y may  officer  persuade it  information government.  the weight  as a r e l e v a n t  it  information  The  arguments  government  a government  is  e a r l i e r provided  to  to  be  on  the  for be unfair taken either impact  extremely  the  the p r o v i s i o n of  c o n s i d e r a t i o n w o u l d be a m a t t e r  create  d e c i s i o n on  simply because i t  t o be a t t a c h e d  with  inconsistency  i s l i k e l y to prove  overturn  or unreasonable,  unauthorized  Moreover,  However,  the c o u r t s to  is unfair  inconsistent with  1 9 4  to  decision  i n r e l a t i o n to  control  that  another.  c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o be  t h o s e c o n s i d e r e d above  an  hold otherwise would  w o u l d o f c o u r s e be p o s s i b l e  decision-making process.  of  render  consideration  d o c t r i n e of  o r as c o n s t i t u t i n g a r e l e v a n t  to  certain  a d e c i s i o n i n accordance  be u l t r a v i r e s .  merely  context,  that  to a c i t i z e n cannot to  of  estoppel  In t h i s  t h e c o u r t s as r e n d e r i n g an i n c o n s i s t e n t l a t e r  side w i l l  citizen.  play.  the o p e r a t i o n  account d u r i n g the  ground  than  the ground be u n a b l e  s u b s t i t u t e one u l t r a v i r e s d e c i s i o n f o r  unreasonable,  into  he w i l l  d e c i s i o n u n f a i r or contribute  itself  Furthermore,  or  rather  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e s s , where  i n f o r m a t i o n would  treated  relies,  been p r o v i d e d  decision i s unreasonable,  during  whatever  the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e .  has p r e v i o u s l y  inconsistent  the  of  review  p r i n c i p l e has a r o l e t o  information  that  i n mind t h a t ,  for  such  the  -  4.  evidence  of  p r i n c i p l e s of  evolving offering  fully  called  of  already  into  the  duty  benefit  duties  of  terms.  the their  that  of  the  Again,  they  doctrine  the  breach a detriment  of  and t h e  have  of  of  i s every  to  be a b l e  estoppel  with be  width  reason  form o f  is quantifiable  that  capable  dealing  and  to be  ensure  in  that  the  as a  financial  offers  the  t o evade  cannot  is  a  t h o s e who s u f f e r  duties  the  particular,  fairness will  i n the  t h e two  to  s u b j e c t as i t  standing w i l l  c i t i z e n s may u l t i m a t e l y  r u l e a p p l i e d i n Canada  In  is still  estoppel,  to  expand  a solution  a potential  duty of  r u l e s of  to  f a i r n e s s appear  duties  information  the development  courts  estoppel  Thus t h e r e  which  sections  information.  than  i s not c o n f i n e d o n l y  Canadian  English  these  i s c l e a r that  to a c t f a i r l y  law.  Furthermore,  prospect effect  impact of  p l a y e v e n by g o v e r n m e n t of  of  of  and s u b s t a n t i v e  and d e t a i l e d r e q u i r e m e n t s .  representation  result  it  The  preceding  so as t o p r o v i d e  s a t i s f a c t o r y means  n o t p o s s e s s e d by t h e  that  part  law,  procedural  inconsistency.  flexibility rigid  duties  but  two  by m i s l e a d i n g g o v e r n m e n t  a f a r more  felt,  suppose  d i s c u s s e d i n the  Administrative  generated  government  to  authorities  a welcome w i l l i n g n e s s on t h e  problems the  -  Assessment The  the  129  bind  the the  Crown. However, allowing  jurisdictional duty of  perform  p r i n c i p l e s of  an u n r e s t r i c t e d a t t a c k  inconsistent with  the  the  the  information  principle will  fairness, role,  judicial  on g o v e r n m e n t  e a r l i e r provided apply  review  to c i t i z e n s .  in this context,  in relation  to  far  d e c i s i o n s which  t h e c o u r t s may be e x p e c t e d  performed  fall  too.  to develop  estoppel  by  the  short  of  are The  In  the  case  of  principles  to  -  duty/discretion government  of  to  that  the  all  together  with  the  rights  notions  Estoppel  of  It  s i t u a t i o n where  the  as t h e  subjects  to  of  information  e a r l i e r provided  currently will  to  roles,  of  of  itself  to  and  are  duty  unable, the  the  the  citizen,  for  does t h e  d e s i g n e d to  i n the  it  regulate defined  the  a body w i t h  dual  on an immense v a r i e t y priority  of  competing  decision conflicts present  purpose.  a problem  the with  of  legal  English  i s t o be hoped t h a t  Commonwealth.  doctrine  in closely  r e s o l u t i o n through that  the  consonant  s a t i s f a c t o r i l y to  citizens  problem  e a c h has  i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s which r e s u l t from  challenge;  be f o l l o w e d e l s e w h e r e  reasonableness  panacea f o r  i s government,  when a g o v e r n m e n t to  provision act  j u s t i c e than law,  supply  to  account  the  r e s u l t s f a r more  private  adapt  s p e c i f i c a l l y developed that  into  achieve  j u s t i c e , which r e q u i r e s  answering  i s c l e a r that  d e c i s i o n s as t o  The  of  principles  unauthorized  i s also c l e a r that  information  performance  administrative  it  "second-guess"  r e v i e w may n o t  l i t i g a n t s and a p p l i c a b l e o n l y  society.  these  the  a universal  alleged representor of  do n o t  requirements  administrative  i s unable  provider  within  But  case to  of  and as t h e maker  interests  provide  is a child  individual  circumstances.  roles  It  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s be t a k e n  i n an a p p r o p r i a t e  estoppel.  they  use o f j u d i c i a l  and t h e  inconsistency.  fundamental  the  that  officers.  fairness,  individually,  government  ensuring  Finally,  by g o v e r n m e n t  duty of  or  -  d i f f i c u l t i e s associated with  relevant  potential  of  the  information  fairly,  of  p r i n c i p l e , of  decisions.  an a n s w e r  130  courts  their  are  lead  of  -  131  -  FOOTNOTES  1.  A l s o known as e s t o p p e l i n p a i s : Spencer Bower, G . , and T u r n e r , A . K . , The Law R e l a t i n g t o E s t o p p e l by R e p r e s e n t a t i o n ( 3 r d e d . ; London, B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1977), pp. 1 , 2 .  2.  E s t o p p e l by r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s m e r e l y one f o r m o f e s t o p p e l . f u r t h e r S p e n c e r Bower and T u r n e r , op c i t . n o t e 1 , p p . 1 , 2 ,  Sir  See 26,  3.  Ibid.,  pp.  4.  Ibid.,  p.  5.  [1921]  1 A.C.  6.  S p e n c e r Bower a n d T u r n e r , o p . c i t . n o t e 1 , M a r t i n s Bank L i m i t e d [ 1 9 3 3 J A . C . 5 1 , a t 57  p p . 4 - 6 ; Greenwood per Lord Tomlin.  7.  S p e n c e r Bower a n d T u r n e r ,  p.  8.  (1878)  9.  S i r Edward C o k e ' s Case (1624) G o d b . 2 8 9 , R a t c l i f f e ( 1 6 2 4 ) H o b . 3 3 3 , a t 3 3 9 ; R^ v . at 200.  27.  7-10. 7.  3 App.  376,  Cas.  at  386.  1004,  op. at  cit.  note  1,  v.  20.  1026. a t 299; L o r d S h e f f i e l d v . D e l me ( 1 7 1 4 ) 10 M o d . 1 9 9 ,  10.  C f . B r i d g e s v . Longman ( 1 8 5 7 ) 24 B e a v . 27; 53 E . R . 267; A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l o f V i c t o r i a v . E t t e r s h a n k ( 1 8 7 5 ) L . R . 6 P . C . 354 ( P . C . ) ; D a v e n p o r t v . The Queen ( 1 8 7 7 ) 3 A . C . 115 ( P . C ) ; Peterson v . The Queen L 1 8 8 9 ] 2 E x . C . R . 6 7 ; R. v . P a u l s o n [ 1 9 2 1 ] 1 A . C 271 ( P . C . ) (Crown s u b j e c t t o d o c t r i n e o T ~ w a i v e r i n r e l a t i o n t o f o r f e i t u r e of l e a s e s ) ; PIimmer v . W e l l i n g t o n C o r p o r a t i o n (1884) 9 A p p . C a s . 6 9 9 ; 53 L . J . P . C 10b ( P . C ) ; A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l t o t h e P r i n c e o f W a l e s v . C o l l o m [ 1 9 1 6 ] 2 K . B . 193 ( C r o w n s u b j e c t t o d o c t r i n e of p r o p r i e t a r y e s t o p p e l ) ; Attorney-General f o r T r i n i d a d and T o b a g o v . B o u r n e [ 1 8 9 5 ] A . C . 8 3 ( P . C . ) (Crown s u b j e c t t o e q u i t a b l e d e f e n c e b a s e d on e x i s t e n c e o f e q u i t a b l e r i g h t s u n d e r a c o n t r a c t f o r s a l e of p r o p e r t y ) ; c f . a l s o A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l for C e y l o n v . de S i l v a [ 1 9 5 3 ] A . C . 461 (Crown may a c q u i r e a g e n t s by e s t o p p e l , through d o c t r i n e of o s t e n s i b l e a u t h o r i t y ) .  11.  [1916] 2 K . B .  12.  Ibid.,  at  13.  [1949]  1 K.B.  14.  C f . Howell v . Falmouth Boat C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. L t d . [1951] a t 845 p e r L o r d S i m o n d s ; a t 8 4 9 p e r L o r d N o r m a n d .  193.  204. 227,  a t 231;  [1948]  2 All  E.R.  767,  at  770. A.C.  837,  -  -  15.  [1977]  16.  Unrep.,  17.  Transcript,  18.  C f . The Queen v . V i c t o r i a Lumber & M a n u f a c t u r i n g C o . (1897) 5 B . C . R . 2 8 8 , a t 304 p e r Walkem J . ; The Queen v . S t . L o u i s ( 1 8 9 7 ) 5 E x . C . R . 3 3 0 , a t 351 p e r B u r b i d g e J . ; Bank " o f M o n t r e a l v . The K i n g ( 1 9 0 7 ) 38 S . C . R . 2 5 8 ; May v . The K i n g ( 1 9 1 3 ) 14 E x . C . R . 3 4 1 , a t 348 p e r A u d e t t e J . ; W e s t e r n V i n e g a r s L t d . v . M i n i s t e r o f N a t i o n a l Revenue [ 1 9 3 8 ] E x . C . R . 3 9 ; A t t o r n e y - g e n e r a l o f Canada v . C.C. F i e l d s & C o . [ 1 9 4 3 ] 1 D . L . R . 4 3 4 ; N o . 358 and M i n i s t e r o f N a t i o n a l Revenue ( 1 9 5 6 ) 16 Tax A . B . C . 14; Gamble v . The Queen L 1 9 6 0 J E x . C . R. 1 3 8 ; Re D i r e c t o r o f S o l d i e r S e t t l e m e n t o f C a n a d a ( 1 9 7 1 ) 18 D. L . R . ( 3 d ) 9 4 ; P r o v i n c i a l Bank o f C a n a d a v . D a i g T e ~ T l 9 8 0 ) 31 N . B . R . (2d) 2 3 6 .  19.  R^ v . Gooderham & W o r t s L t d . [ 1 9 2 8 ] 3 D . L . R 1 0 9 , a t 133 p e r G r a n t J.A.; Queen V i c t o r i a N i a g a r a F a l l s P a r k C o m m i s s i o n e r s v . I n t e r n a t i o n a l R a i l w a y C o . L 1 9 2 8 ] 4 D . L . R . 7 5 5 , a t 769 p e r G r a n t J .A.; The K i n g v . Canadian P a c i f i c Railway Co. [ 1 9 3 0 j T x . C.R. 2 6 , a t 37 p e r A u d e t t e J .  20.  Lyman,  21.  E . g . Western V i n e g a r s L t d . note 18.  22.  E . g . A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l o f Canada v . C . C . F i e l d s & C o . and Re D i r e c t o r of S o l d i e r S e t t l e m e n t of Canada, supra note 18.  23.  Cf. Foulkes, D., 1 9 8 2 ) , p. 11.  24.  C f . Wade, H . W . R . , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law ( 5 t h e d . ; O x f o r d , C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1 9 8 2 ) , p. 219; F o u l k e s , o p . c i t . n o t e 2 3 , p. 173; Bradley, A . W . , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e J u s t i c e and t h e B i n d i n g E f f e c t o f O f f i c i a l A c t s ( 1 9 8 1 ) 34 C . L . P . 1 , 1 2 .  25.  Cf.  26.  C f . C r a i g , P . P . , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law ( L o n d o n , Sweet & M a x w e l l , 1 9 8 3 ) , p . 5 6 8 ; A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r C e y l o n v . de S i l v a [ 1 9 5 3 ] 461, at 481.  27.  1 Q.B.  132  643.  December 2 0 t h ,  S.,  Wade,  p.  (C.A.).  22.  Estoppel  op.  1984  and t h e Crown v.  (1978)  M i n i s t e r of  A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law ( 5 t h  cit.  note 24,  pp.  38,  9 Man.  L.J.  National  ed.;  15. Revenue,  London,  supra  Butterworths,  39.  A.C.  C f . K e n n e d y v . M i n i s t e r o f N a t i o n a l R e v e n u e [ 1 9 2 9 ] E x . C . R . 36 ( C a n . ) ; G i l l i e s B r o s . L t d . v . The K i n g L 1 9 4 7 ] 2 D . L . R . 769 (Can.); A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l v . M u n i c f p a l C o u n c i l o f S y d n e y ( 1 9 2 0 ) 20 S . R . ( N . S . W . ) 46 ( A u s t . ) ; Re J a u n c e y L 1 9 8 0 ] Q . R . 3 3 5 ( A u s t . ) ; Wormald v . G i o i a [ 1 9 8 1 ] 26 S . A . S . R . 237 ( A u s t . ) ; Salisbury City Council v. D o n n e r , 1958 ( 2 ) S . A . 368 ( S . RhodesiaTT  -  133 -  28.  [1950]  1 K . B . 148.  29.  Ibid.,  a t 153.  30.  [1967] 2 A l l E.R.  1041.  31.  [1971]  743.  32.  C f . W e l l s v . M i n i s t e r o f Housing and L o c a l 3 0 , a t 1044 p e r L o r d D e n n i n g M . R .  33.  Op. c i t . note 2 4 , p .  34.  W e l l s v . M i n i s t e r o f Housing and L o c a l at 1050.  35.  C p . A n d r e w s , J . A . , E s t o p p e l s A g a i n s t S t a t u t e s (1966) 29 M . L . R . 1 , 8 ; L a k e r A i r w a y s L t d . v . D e p a r t m e n t o f Trade7 s u p r a n o t e 1 5 , a t 707 per L o r d Denning M.R.  36.  Supra note 13. See a l s o C r a b b v . A r u n D i s t r i c t C o u n c i l [ 1 9 7 6 ] C h . 179; L a k e r A i r w a y s L t d . v . Department o f T r a d e , s u p r a ~ n o t e 1 5 , a t 707 p e r L o r d D e n n i n g M . R .  37.  Op. c i t . n o t e 2 4 , p . 3 .  38.  Supra note  39.  Op. c i t . n o t e 2 4 , p . 4 .  40.  C r a i g , o p . c i t . note 2 6 , p . 570.  41.  Western F i s h Products L t d . v . E.R. 204, 221.  42.  C r a i g , o p . c i t . note 2 6 , p . 570.  43.  Ibid.  44.  Ibid.,  p. 572.  45.  Ibid.,  p. 575.  46.  C r a i g , P . P . , R e p r e s e n t a t i o n s By P u b l i c B o d i e s ( 1 9 7 7 ) 417.  47.  C f . B r a d l e y , o p . c i t . n o t e 2 4 , p . 13; F a z a l , M . A . , O f f i c i a l A c t s and A d v i c e [1972] P . L . 4 3 , 5 5 - 5 7 .  48.  Op. c i t . n o t e 2 4 , p . 13;  3 A l l E.R.  Government,  supra  note  13. Government,  supra note 3 0 ,  14.  Penwith D i s t r i c t Council [1981] 2 A l l  and s e e F a z a l ,  93 L . Q . R . 3 9 8 ,  R e l i a b i l i t y of  o p . c i t . note  47.  Supra note Lords.  50.  The o f f i c i a l a t t h e S e c r e t a r i a t who d e a l t w i t h b e h a l f of the Governor.  51.  Transcript,  52.  Act  53.  R e p o r t o f Commonwealth Ombudsman 1979 Government P u b l i s h i n g S e r v i c e , 1 9 7 9 ) ,  54.  G r e g o r y , R . , a n d H u t c h e s o n , P . , The P a r l i a m e n t a r y Ombudsman: A S t u d y I n The C o n t r o l o f A d m i n i s t T a t i v e A c t i o n ( L o n d o n , G . A l l e n & U n w i n , 1 9 7 5 ) , p p . 1 9 7 - 2 0 0 ; Gammie, M . , R e v e n u e P r a c t i c e : A S u i t a b l e Case f o r Treatment? [1980] B . T . R . 304, 308.  55.  Estoppel a c t s i n personam: 1, pp. 16-19.  56.  I t i s n o t s u g g e s t e d t h a t any t h i r d p a r t y i n t e r e s t s w e r e a f f e c t e d by t h e a c t u a l d e c i s i o n i n G o w a .  57.  Or w h e r e i t w o u l d e f f e c t i v e l y d i s p e n s e w i t h a s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t : M i l l e t t v . The Queen [ 1 9 5 4 ] E x . C . R . 5 6 2 ; Gamble The Queen [ 1 9 6 0 J E x . C . R . 138.  4,  p. 1901,  The  decision  -  49.  No.  16.  134  i s b e i n g appealed to  t h e House  of  s u c h a p p l i c a t i o n s on  16. as  amended. (Canberra, p. 4 .  S p e n c e r Bower  Australian  and T u r n e r ,  op.  cit.  note  adversely  v.  58.  [ 1 9 3 7 ] A . C . 610; [1937] 1 W.W.R. 5 9 1 . See a l s o Woon v . M i n i s t e r o f N a t i o n a l Revenue [ 1 9 5 1 ] E x . C . R . 18 ( C a n . ) ; Joseph~~v. M i n i s t e r o f Manpower and I m m i g r a t i o n , u n r e p . , J u l y 1 1 t h , 1983 ( F e d . C.A.) ( C a n . ) ; S u n d e r l a n d C o r p o r a t i o n v . P r i e s t m a n [ 1 9 2 7 ] 2 C h . 107 (E.); S t a t e o f ~ S o u t h A u s t r a l i a v . A . ' T . S . A . P t y . L t d . ( 1 9 8 0 ) 29 A . L . R . 367 ( A u s t . ) : C o f f s H a r b o u r S h i r e ~ ~ C o u n c i l v . Ben H a l l I n d u s t r i e s P t y . L t d . ( 1 9 8 3 ) 48 L . G . R . A . 391 ( A u s t . ) ; T a r a n a k i E l e c t r i c - P o w e r B o a r d v . P r o p r i e t o r s o f P u k e t a p u 3A B l o c k I n c o r p o r a t e d L1958J N . Z . L . R . 297 ( N . Z . ) ; D u r b a n C i t y C o u n c i l v . G l e n o r e S u p e r m a r k e t and C a f e , 1981 ( 1 ) S . A . 470 ( S . A . ) .  59.  [1937] A . C .  60.  M i l l e t t v . The Q u e e n , s u p r a n o t e 57; G r e v a s v . The Queen ( 1 9 5 7 ) D . L . R . ( 2 d ) 5 0 0 ; Howe!1 v . F a l m o u t h B o a t C o n s t r u c t i o n C o . Ltd., supra note 14.  61.  [1962] 1 Q.B. 416. See a l s o Re C h e n o w e t h ( 1 9 6 3 ) 45 W . W . R . 3 6 4 ( C a n . ) ; Re McDonogh ( 1 9 7 8 ) 7 A . R . 4 1 2 ( C a n . ) ; R o o t k i n v . K e n t County C o u n c i l L1981] 2 A l l E.R. 227 ( E . ) ; Sunderland Corporation v . P r i e s t m a n , s u p r a n o t e 58 ( E . ) ; N.S.W. T r o t t i n g Club v . Glebe M u n i c i p a l C o u n c i l ( 1 9 3 7 ) L . G . R . ( N . S . W . ) 121 ( A u s t . ) ; J u r k o v i c v . C o r p o r a t i o n o f t h e C i t y o f P o r t A d e l a i d e ( 1 9 7 9 ) 41 L . G . R . A . 71 ( A u s t . ) ; U n i o n S . S . C o . o f New Z e a l a n d L t d . v . C o m m i s s i o n e r o f I n l a n d R e v e n u e L 1 9 6 2 J N . Z . L . R . 656 ( N . Z . ) .  610,  a t 620;  [1937]  1 W.W.R. 591,  at 596. 10  -  135 -  62.  [1962] 1 Q.B. 4 1 6 ,  63.  Cf.  64.  The e f f e c t o f t h e d u t y / d i s c r e t i o n  65.  The e f f e c t  66.  Supra s e c t i o n A 3 .  67.  [1985]  68.  B u t n o t e t h e d i s c r e t i o n a r y l i m i t a t i o n s on u n f a i r n e s s a s a g r o u n d o f s u b s t a n t i v e r e v i e w , i n d i c a t e d by L o r d Templeman i b i d . , a t 8 5 2 , and discussed i n f r a , section B3.  69.  Infra,  70.  Cf.  71.  Supra P a r t  72.  1981 ( 1 )  73.  Ibid.,  74.  C f . G i l l i e s B r o s . L t d . v . The K i n g [ 1 9 4 7 ] 2 D . L . R . 769 ( C a n . ) ; K o g a r a h M u n i c i p a l C o u n c i l v . J o h n s t o n e ( 1 9 7 9 ) 41 L . G . R . A . 3 6 6 ( A u s t . ) ; F . N . E c k o l d P t y . L t d . v . Auburn M u n i c i p a l C o u n c i l (1975) 34 L . G . R . A . 114 ( A u s t . ) .  75.  Supra,  76.  C f . S c h w e i k e r v . Hansen ( 1 9 8 1 ) 101 S . C t . 1 4 6 8 , a t 1 4 7 0 ; H e c k l e r v . Community H e a l t h S e r v i c e s o f C r a w f o r d C t y . I n c . ( 1 9 8 4 ) 104 S . C t . 2 2 1 8 , a t 2 2 2 7 ; c p . S c h w e i k e r v . Hansen a t 1 4 7 3 ~ p e r J u s t i c e s M a r s h a l l and Brennan ( d i s s . ) .  77.  C f . S a l i s b u r y C i t y C o u n c i l v . D o n n e r , 1958 ( 2 ) S . A . 368 ( S . R h o d e s i a ) ; F . N . E c k o l d P t y . L t d . v . Auburn M u n i c i p a l C o u n c i l 34 L . G . R . A . 114 ( N . S . W . ) .  Wade,  at 423, 424.  o p . c i t . note 24, p p . 344-46.  of the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l  principle. principle.  2 W.L.R. 836.  sections  [1937]  B1-B4.  A . C . 610, a t 620; [1937] I,  1 W.W.R. 5 9 1 , a t 5 9 6 .  section 4(d).  S . A . 470 ( T h i r i o n  J.).  at 479.  Part  I,  section 6 ( c ) .  (1975)  78.  (1961)  81 S . C t . 1 3 3 6 .  79.  [1982] J . P . L . 122. C f . a l s o Re McDonogh ( 1 9 7 8 ) 7 A . R . 412 ( C a n . ) ; Western F i s h P r o d u c t s L t d . v . Penwith D i s t r i c t C o u n c i l [1981] 2 A l l E . R . 204 ( E . ) ; S t a t e o f S o u t h A u s t r a l i a v . A . T . S . A . P t y . L t d . ( 1 9 8 0 ) 29 A . L . R . 3 b / , a t 3 9 b , 3 9 / p e r W i l l i a m s A . J . ( A u s t . ) .  80.  S p e n c e r Bower a n d T u r n e r ,  81.  [1947]  2 D.L.R. 769.  o p . c i t . note 1 ,  pp. 38, 39.  -  -  82.  [ 1 9 8 1 ] 26 S . A . S . R . Hodgson ( W i c k f o r d )  83.  Supra,  Part  I,  section  3.  84.  Supra,  Part  I,  section  6(d).  85.  S p e n c e r Bower a n d T u r n e r ,  86.  S u p r a n o t e 30  87.  Cp.  88.  S p e n c e r Bower a n d T u r n e r ,  89.  [ 1 9 3 5 ] S . C . R . 5 1 9 ; [ 1 9 3 5 ] 4 D . L . R . 1 9 6 ; r e v e r s e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s by the P r i v y C o u n c i l , [ 1 9 3 7 ] A . C . 610; [ 1 9 3 7 ] 1 W.W.R. 5 9 1 .  90.  (1977)  91.  1958  92.  Cf. a l s o Taranaki E l e c t r i c - P o w e r Board v . 3A B l o c k T n c o r p o r a t e d L 1 9 5 8 ] N . Z . L . R . 297  93.  S p e n c e r Bower a n d T u r n e r ,  94.  Ibid.,  p.  95.  [1981]  2 All  96.  [1949] 1 K . B .  97.  Ibid.,  98.  See r e f e r e n c e s s u p r a n o t e 14; v . de S i l v a , s u p r a n o t e 1 0 .  and s e e A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l  99.  S p e n c e r Bower a n d T u r n e r ,  cit.  100.  C f . A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r C e y l o n v . de S i l v a , s u p r a n o t e 10; J.E. V e r r e a u l t F i l s L t e e v . A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r Quebec ( 1 9 7 6 ) 57 D . L . R . ( 3 d ) 4 0 3 ; M e a t e s v . A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l L 1 9 7 9 J 1 N . Z . L . R . 4 1 5 , a t 462 per Davison C . J .  101.  Cf.  102.  C f . Rama C o r p . L t d . v . P r o v e d T i n & G e n e r a l 1 A l l E.R. 5 5 4 , a t 556 p e r S l a d e J .  ibid.,  C f . also Southend-On-Sea s u p r a n o t e 61 (E).  op.  cit.  note 1,  p.  Corporation  v.  375.  (E).  a t 1050  20 N . B . R .  (2)  237. Ltd.,  136  S.A.  per R u s s e l l  (2d)  553  op.  L.J. cit.  (diss.). note 1,  pp. 94,  95.  (N.B.S.C.).  368.  op.  cit.  P r o p r i e t o r s of (N.Z.).  note 1,  pp.  28,  Puketapu  101.  104. E.R.  at 232,  C r a i g , op.  227.  227;  [1948]  2 All  E.R.  767.  770.  cit.  op.  note 26,  p.  note 1,  p.  182  et  for  Ceylon  seq.  561. Investments L t d .  [1952]  2 Q.B.  481,  137  -  103.  [1964]  at 505.  104.  See c a s e s c i t e d s u p r a n o t e 9 8 .  105.  [ 1 9 7 1 ] 1 Q . B . 2 2 2 ; [ 1 9 7 0 ] 3 A l l E . R . 4 9 6 . T h i s c a s e m u s t be r e a d i n t h e l i g h t o f the s u b s e q u e n t d e c i s i o n o f t h e C o u r t o f Appeal i n Western F i s h Products L t d . v . Penwith D i s t r i c t C o u n c i l , supra note  w. 106.  Op.  c i t . note 2 4 , p p . 2 3 1 , 2 3 2 .  107.  Namely N o r t h W e s t e r n Gas B o a r d v . M a n c h e s t e r C o r p o r a t i o n [ 1 9 6 4 ] W . L . R . 64; A l g a r v . M i d d l e s e x County C o u n c i l [1945] 2 A l l E.R. 243.  108.  C f . e . g . Crabb v . Arun D i s t r i c t C o u n c i l [ 1 9 7 6 ] C h . 179, d i s c u s s e d by B r a d l e y , o p . c i t . n o t e 2 4 , p p . 7 , 8 ; and c p . A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l v. M u n i c i p a l C o u n c i l o f S y d n e y ( 1 9 2 0 ) 20 S . R . ( N . S . W . ) 4 6 ; New S o u t h Wales T r o t t i n g Club v . Glebe M u n i c i p a l C o u n c i l (1937) L . G . R . ( N . S . W . ) 1 2 1 ; G i l l i e s B r o s . L t d . v . The K i n g ~ T l 9 4 7 ] 2 D . L . R . 7 6 9 .  109.  Supra,  Part  110.  (1832)  131  111.  Ibid.,  a t 574.  112.  [1900]  1 C h . 695 ( C . A . ) .  113.  Ibid.,  at 705.  114.  C f . Wade, o p . c i t . n o t e 2 4 , p . 3 4 4 ; A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l de S i l v a , s u p r a n o t e 1 0 , a t 4 8 0 .  115.  Supra,  116.  Op.  117.  Supra,  118.  Supra note  119.  Ibid.,  120.  Newbury D i s t r i c t C o u n c i l v . S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e f o r t h e E n v i r o n m e n t L 1 9 8 0 J 1 A l l E . R . 7 3 1 , a t 7 5 2 , 7 5 3 ; c f . a l s o i b i d . , a t 744 p e r L o r d Fraser.  121.  Bradley,  122.  To be f a i r t o B r a d l e y , he d o e s i n f a c t the duty to a c t f a i r l y : i b i d . , p p . 1 8 ,  I, E.R.  section  1  section 4(d). 563.  f o r Ceylon  v.  A3(a).  c i t . note 2 4 , p .  15.  section A l . 41.  at 221.  op. c i t . note 24, p.  1. devote 19.  some c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o  -  138  -  123.  P a r l i a m e n t a r y Commissioner Act  124.  Ibid.,  125.  Bradley, op.  126.  C f . De S m i t h , S . A . , J u d i c i a l R e v i e w o f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e A c t i o n ( 4 t h e d . ; L o n d o n , S t e v e n s & S o n s L i m i t e d , 1 9 8 0 ) , p . 1 0 5 ; Wade, o p . c i t . note 24, pp. 8 3 - 8 6 , 3 4 5 , 346.  127.  Cf.  128.  I n l a n d Revenue C o m m i s s i o n e r s v . N a t i o n a l F e d e r a t i o n o f S e l f - E m p l o y e d and S m a l l B u s i n e s s e s L t d . L1982] A . C . 6 1 7 , L 1 9 8 1 J 2 A l l E . R . 9 3 , a t 112 p e r L o r d S c a r m a n .  s.  (c.  13).  5.  Bradley,  cit.  1967  cit.  op.  note 24,  cit.  note 24,  9.  note 24,  p.  11.  at 652;  129.  Op.  130.  F o r d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n , s e e De S m i t h , o p . c i t . 2 3 8 - 4 0 ; Wade, o p . c i t . n o t e 2 4 , p p . 4 6 5 - 6 8 .  131.  [1972] 2 Q.B.  132.  Ibid.,  133.  Op.  134.  Supra note 131,  135.  C f . t h e more m o d e r a t e f o r m u l a t i o n o f L o r d D e n n i n g M . R . h i m s e l f i n Laker Airways L t d . v . Department of T r a d e , supra note 15, a t 707. C p . h o w e v e r R. v . S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e f o r t h e Home D e p a r t m e n t , ex p . Khan [ 1 9 8 5 ] 1 A l l E . R . 4 0 , a t 4 6 , 48 p e r P a r k e r L.J.  136.  Discussed i n f r a .  137.  C f . A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l o f Hong Kong v . Ng Yuen S h i u [ 1 9 8 3 ] 2 A . C . 6 2 9 , at 637; [1983] 2 A l l E.R. 3 4 6 , a t 350; C o u n c i l o f C i v i l S e r v i c e Unions v . M i n i s t e r f o r t h e C i v i l S e r v i c e L1984J 3 A l l E.R. 9 3 5 , a t 944 p e r L o r d F r a s e r .  138.  [1983] 2 A . C .  139.  Ibid.,  140.  (1983) 49 A . L . R . 1 2 3 , d i s t i n g u i s h e d i n M i n i s t e r f o r I m m i g r a t i o n E t h n i c A f f a i r s v . A r s l a n ( 1 9 8 4 ) 55 A . L . R . 361 ( F . C . A . ) .  141.  Ibid.,  299;  at 308,  cit.  at  133.  11.  [1972] 2 A l l  E.R.  589  note 126,  pp.  (C.A.).  594.  note 24,  at 638,  p.  p.  p.  340.  at 310,  629;  596 p e r R o s k i l l  [1983]  2 All  E.R.  L.J.  346.  351. and  -  139 -  142.  Ibid.  143.  [1985]  1 A l l E.R.  144.  Parker  a n d Dunn L . J J . ,  145.  Supra  146.  The p h r a s e " l e g i t i m a t e e x p e c t a t i o n " i s t o be p r e f e r r e d t o "reasonable e x p e c t a t i o n " : Council o f C i v i l S e r v i c e Unions v . M i n i s t e r f o r t h e C i v i l S e r v i c e L 1 9 8 4 ] 3 A l l h . K . 9 3 b , a t 944 p e r L o r d F r a s e r ; a t 949 p e r L o r d T T i p l o c k .  147.  [1984] 3 A l l E.R.  148.  I b i d . , a t 943-44 p e r Lord F r a s e r ; per Lord R o s k i l l .  149.  T h e r e i s an a m b i g u i t y i n h e r e n t i n t h e c o n c e p t o f t h e " l e g i t i m a t e e x p e c t a t i o n " , which i s sometimes used to r e f e r to t h e e x p e c t a t i o n o f a h e a r i n g , and s o m e t i m e s t o t h e e x p e c t a t i o n o f a b e n e f i t o r a d v a n t a g e w h i c h h a s been t a k e n away w i t h o u t a h e a r i n g : Wade, o p . c i t . n o t e 2 4 , p . 4 6 5 . Where t h e b e n e f i t o r a d v a n t a g e i s i t s e l f a h e a r i n g , a s i n A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l o f Hong K o n g v . Ng Yuen S h i u a n d C o l e v . C u n n i n g h a m , t h e r e i s no m a t e r i a l d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e two u s e s o f t h e c o n c e p t .  150.  R^ v . L i v e r p o o l C o r p o r a t i o n , A s s o c i a t i o n , supra note 131,  151.  Cf.  152.  Quoted i n the judgment 639, 352.  153.  Supra,  154.  Cf. Attorney-General at 636, 349-50.  155.  Supra,  156.  H o w e l l v . F a l m o u t h B o a t C o n s t r u c t i o n C o . L t d . [ 1 9 5 1 ] A . C . 837 ( H . L . ) ; A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l f o r C e y l o n v . A . D . S i l v a , s u p r a n o t e 10 ( P . C . ) ; c p . R o b e r t s o n v . M i n i s t e r o f P e n s i o n s L1949J 1 K . B . 227; [1948] 2 A l l E.R. 767.  157.  Supra note  158.  Cf.  note  infra,  (C.A.). Watkins L . J .  dissenting.  143, a t 4 2 .  935 ( H . L . ) . a t 952 p e r L o r d D i p l o c k ;  a t 957  ex p . L i v e r p o o l T a x i F l e e t O p e r a t o r s ' a t 3 1 1 , 597 p e r R o s k i l l L . J .  section B3.  Part  I,  section  Wade,  40  of the P r i v y  C o u n c i l , supra note 138, a t  section 4(d). o f Hong Kong v .  Ng Yuen S h i u ,  supra note 138,  A3(a).  143, a t 51.  Cf.  Wade,  o p . c i t . note 2 4 , p . 5 0 6 .  o p . c i t . note 24, p p . 3 4 6 , 377.  I.C.R.  170  140 -  159.  [1976]  (C.A.).  160.  I b i d . , a t 185 p e r L o r d D e n n i n g M . R . , a t 192 p e r S c a r m a n L . J . ; 195 p e r G o f f L . J .  161.  Ibid.,  a t 185 p e r L o r d D e n n i n g M . R .  162.  (1981)  79 L . G . R . 6 5 5 .  163.  Supra  note  164.  Ibid.,  at  165.  Ibid.,  at 728.  166.  Supra  167.  1970 c . 1 0 .  168.  [1983] 2 A l l E.R. 3 0 0 .  169.  Ibid.,  170.  C o u n c i l o f C i v i l S e r v i c e Unions v . M i n i s t e r f o r t h e C i v i l supra note 14/, a t 9 b i per Lord Dip l o c k .  at  15. 708-09.  note 6 7 .  at  306-307. Service,  171.  Ibid.  172.  Supra,  Part  173.  [1984]  3 A l l E.R. 625.  174.  W i t h whom G r i f f i t h s  175.  Supra  176.  Supra note 6 7 .  177.  With w h i c h L o r d s S c a r m a n , E d m u n d - D a v i e s , K e i t h and B r i g h t m a n a g r e e d , o n l y L o r d Scarman d e l i v e r i n g s e p a r a t e r e a s o n s .  178.  Supra  179.  Ibid.  180.  Ibid.,  181.  Ibid.  182.  Ibid.  183.  Ibid.,  I,  note 173,  section 4(d).  and D i l l o n L . J . J ,  at 631.  note 6 7 , a t 8 5 0 .  at 852.  at 854.  agreed.  -  141  -  184.  I b i d . , a t 8 5 2 , per L o r d Tempieman. H i s L o r d s h i p gave no i n d i c a t i o n o f w h a t c o n d u c t f a l l i n g s h o r t o f an a c t u a l b r e a c h o f a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n w i l l be t r e a t e d as e q u i v a l e n t t h e r e t o f o r t h e purposes of the duty of f a i r n e s s . I t may be t h a t t h e p h r a s e " e q u i v a l e n t t o " was i n t e n d e d m e r e l y t o c o n f i r m t h a t t h e d u t y e m b r a c e s i m p l i e d and i n f e r r e d , as w e l l as e x p r e s s , representations.  185.  Ibid.,  186.  A l s o u n s a t i s f a c t o r y i s h i s L o r d s h i p ' s r e f e r e n c e to c o n d u c t w h i c h w o u l d , " i n t h e c a s e o f an a u t h o r i t y o t h e r t h a n a Crown a u t h o r i t y " , f o u n d an e s t o p p e l by r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ( i b i d . , a t 8 5 2 ) . It i s c l e a r t h a t , i n E n g l a n d , e s t o p p e l by r e p r e s e n t a t i o n may o p e r a t e a g a i n s t the Crown: s u p r a , s e c t i o n A2.  187.  Ibid.,  at  188.  Supra,  Part  189.  Supra,  section  190.  I t w o u l d be p o s s i b l e f o r t h e c o u r t s so t o u s e t h e i r d i s c r e t i o n a s e f f e c t i v e l y to i n t r o d u c e a b a l a n c i n g t e s t i n t o t h i s area of the l a w , w h e r e b y t h e u n l a w f u l n e s s o f an i n c o n s i s t e n t g o v e r n m e n t d e c i s i o n o r t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f r e l i e f w o u l d depend upon t h e b a l a n c e o f harm t o a f f e c t e d i n t e r e s t s . Any s u c h d e v e l o p m e n t w o u l d be open t o t h e same o b j e c t i o n as t h e b a l a n c i n g t e s t p r o p o s e d i n r e l a t i o n to the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e : s u p r a , s e c t i o n A 3 ( a ) . However, such a d r a m a t i c e x t e n s i o n of the c o n t r o l e x e r t e d over g o v e r n m e n t t h r o u g h t h e medium o f j u d i c i a l r e v i e w i s m o s t u n l i k e l y to o c c u r .  191.  Supra,  192.  Supra  note  193.  Ibid.,  at  194.  Supra,  section  at  852.  852. I,  section  section  4(d).  A3(b).  A3(a).  143. 52. 82.  - 142 -  PART I I I HOLDING GOVERNMENT BOUND: MISLEADING GOVERNMENT INFORMATION AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY  -  1.  143  -  Introduction There  which  the  reliance  i s a c o n s i d e r a b l e body  defendant  (D)  faced  of  a criminal  upon m i s l e a d i n g g o v e r n m e n t  reported  information.  a r i s e n i n s u c h c a s e s , and w h i c h  i s whether  his misguided r e l i a n c e affords  defence  the charge.  necessary  to  information  m i s l e d D as to  M i s t a k e Of  of  situations,  a matter  of  of  misleading of  fact.  that  mistake  rea by  the  give  of  D from  operated normal  committed  as t o  fact  rules  the  view,  provided  having not  fewer  the  this  Part,  him,  it  is  i n which  and t h a t  d i f f i c u l t i e s than  a  first  the  i n which  it  of  the  misled  still  maintained  in England,1  a defence  provides  since  the  burden  v.  but  rather  charged,  holds City  state good  of  a complete e x p l a n a t i o n  as an of  mistake  it  the  application  proof:  if  mens  conviction  doubt whether  he  mind.  i n Canada  Sault of  of  a  was  basis,  D c o u l d escape  r a i s e a reasonable  of  c h a r g e where  On t h i s  and s t a n d a r d  necessary  still  doctrine  to a c r i m i n a l  as t o  involving  the  s u f f i c i e n t to  but  those  because of  offence  view  information  law,  r e s p e c t i n g the  traditional 2  government  so much as a " d e f e n c e " ,  evidence  mens r e a o f f e n c e s , no l o n g e r  that  r e q u i s i t e mens r e a .  the actus reus with The  it  r i s e to  was an i n g r e d i e n t producing  namely  issue,  has  Fact  traditional  a mistake  of  or should afford that  his  i s s u e which  subject  in  law.  information The  prevented  of  fact  D,  fact,  C a s e s i n w h i c h D was m i s l e d by matter  An  i s the  a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of  d i s t i n g u i s h two  him as t o a m a t t e r  2.  In  cases  c h a r g e as a r e s u l t o f  frequently  to  criminal  Ste.  in relation  Marie  the m i s t a k e  3 of  fact  to  -  doctrine.  In  offences  that  into  those  requiring  and i n t r o d u c e d  liability  offences.  of  These  -  either  facts which,  innocent,  or  that  if  that  rejected  full  intermediate,  "public welfare" b u t D may  would  he t o o k  all  traditional  have  of  of  are  but m i s t a k e n l y  rendered  strict  subject  reasonable  believed  h i s act or  steps  to  of  absolute  category  offences  division  to  a v o i d c o n v i c t i o n by p r o v i n g  he r e a s o n a b l y  true,  the  mens r e a and t h o s e  a third,  mens r e a r e q u i r e m e n t ,  diligence"  -  case, Dickson J .  liability  formal  144  no "due  in a  set  omission  avoid committing  the  4 offence.  It  i s c l e a r t h a t D must  fulfilling  the  d u t y owed by  law,  have  been d i l i g e n t a c t u a l l y  and n o t m e r e l y  in  in ascertaining  its  5 existence. operate  Accordingly,  as a d e f e n c e ,  committing that  a reasonable mistake  i n the  true  sense of  a s t r i c t l i a b l i t y offence  he was a c t u a l l y c o m p l y i n g w i t h  a p p l i c a b l e whether information  the mistake  or whether  However, fact,  whereby  cannot  operate  governing Marie.6  it  it  it  w h i c h was l e f t This  information charged with  unaffected  v.  failure  R.R. to  i n the  Clark  file  and o n l y relevant  from the  only  the word,  r e s u l t of  of  it  will  cause. view of m i s t a k e  liability,  City  f i e l d of  misleading  returns  of  7  is  government  n e g a t i v e s mens r e a ,  Associates L t d . ,  believe  defence  misleading  absolute  of  led D to  The  by R^ v .  income tax  facts  to a charge  law.  traditional it  the  if,  some o t h e r  if  to o f f e n c e s  i s exemplified  by  from  i s a "defence"  in relation  the  i s the  proceeds  follows  if,  as t o  Sault  of  that the  it  law  Ste.  government  i n w h i c h D was  contrary  to  s.  150(2)  of  g the  Income T a x  Clark,  the  which C l a r k  Act.  president was  Evidence of  informed  the  was l e d o f  a conversation  a c c u s e d company,  that  between  and a D e p a r t m e n t a u d i t o r ,  t i m e w o u l d be a l l o w e d f o r  late  filing.  in The  - 145 -  court  concluded t h a t the  accordingly  that  o f f e n c e was one o f  the c o n v e r s a t i o n  Moreover,  mistake  government i n f o r m a t i o n  of  had t h e  offence,  c o u l d not  fact  liability,  save D from  i s no d e f e n c e w h e r e  result  but  absolute  of  the  as to  In  relation  to  s t r i c t l i a b l i t y offences,  of  the  due d i l i g e n c e d e f e n c e w h e r e b y  conviction. misleading  t h a t D was m i s t a k e n ,  ingredients  the  consequences of this  follows  and  not  as t o  the  committing  it.  from  the  definition  D m u s t have b e l i e v e d h i m s e l f  to  be  9 complying with  the  mens r e a o f f e n c e s  relevant  by t h e E n g l i s h  was a r r e s t e d w h i l e desert or A report to  to  It  i s demonstrated v.  Arrowsmith,10  distributing leaflets  to  B r i t i s h troops  was s u b m i t t e d  to  s h o u l d t h e y be p o s t e d  the Director  h i s c o n s e n t to  of  a prosecution  under  No c o n s e n t was f o r t h c o m i n g ,  was i n f o r m e d  of  fact.  time  would  take  t h e DPP  even  could provide But with  only  if  it  the  in  doctrine the  that a belief  that by  a  view  to  o f what a c t i o n She d i d s o ,  the  and  this  and h e r  she w o u l d not the  of m i s t a k e  of  fact  conduct of  the c r i m i n a l  s i t u a t i o n w h e r e D i s m i s l e d by  law.  enables  appeal  be the  the c o u r t s  by m i s l e a d i n g More  such i n f o r m a t i o n  to  Ireland.  DPP,  law.  d i f f i c u l t i e s engendered  i n the area of  them  solicitor  D was c o n v i c t e d ,  had been e n g e n d e r e d  no d e f e n c e  some o f  information  and D ' s  i n d i c a t i o n was g i v e n  c o n s e n t e d to a p r o s e c u t i o n . ground  urging  to Northern  s h o u l d D d i s t r i b u t e more l e a f l e t s .  was d i s m i s s e d on t h e prosecuted,  No  where D  the I n c i t e m e n t  Act.1''' that  to  Public Prosecutions with  Disaffection  DPP  in relation  c a s e JFL  disobey orders  obtaining  law.  to  deal  government  intractable  is  i n t o a m i s t a k e of  the law.  -  3.  M i s t a k e Of It  146  -  Law  i s often  stated  t o be a r u l e  of  t h e common l a w t h a t  a  12 mistake  of  law provides  general  rule  offences  by  no d e f e n c e  to  i s c o d i f i e d i n Canada s.  19 o f  that  a criminal  in relation  statute,  charge.  This 13 Code  to C r i m i n a l  as a p p l i e d t o  offences  under  other  14 federal  enactments  offences  under  by s . 2 7 ( 2 )  of  B r i t i s h Columbia  the I n t e r p r e t a t i o n  statutes  by s .  122  Act,  of  and  to  the Offence  Act  15 (B.C.). 19, law,  to  deal  16  there  Canadian with  o r where  courts  have  c a s e s where  developed  he a c t e d u n d e r  l a w may  to  i t was i m p o s s i b l e f o r D t o know " c o l o u r of  has been no e x p l i c i t r e c o g n i t i o n  mistake of  l i m i t e d exeptions  of  save D from c o n v i c t i o n  right." the if  17  the  However,  English it  s.  e x c e p t i o n whereby  relates  to  some  a  legal  18 concept  involved  i n t h e mens r e a r e q u i s i t e f o r  The w i d e logical  a p p l i c a b i l i t y of  contortions  the  offence.  s.  19 has l e d t h e c o u r t s  in cases i n v o l v i n g  m i s l e a d i n g government  to  perform  information.  19 One s u c h was v . MacPhee, where D was c h a r g e d w i t h b e i n g t h e o c c u p a n t o f a m o t o r v e h i c l e i n w h i c h he knew t h e r e was a r e s t r i c t e d weapon,  namely  a carbine  rifle,  contrary  to  s . 94(b)  of  the  Criminal  20 Code.  It  was h e l d t h a t ,  as t h e  RCMP o f f i c e r  and o f  certificate,  D had m i s t a k e n l y  r e s t r i c t e d weapon, prevent  only  question  of  a conversation  his successful application for  and t h a t  him from h a v i n g  classification  r e s u l t of  the  believed that  the  t h i s was a m i s t a k e r e q u i r e d mens r e a .  the m i s t a k e  as one o f  as t o w h i c h D was m i s t a k e n  fact  with  a firearm  r i f l e was n o t of  fact  a to  the  i s extremely  being whether  registration  sufficient  However,  an  the  dubious,  the  rifle,  whose  21 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w e r e c l e a r l y known t o h i m , f e l l w i t h i n the d e f i n i t i o n o f " r e s t r i c t e d weapon" i n s . 8 2 ( 1 ) o f t h e C o d e . Although  the  -  distinction this  fact  provide  under  of  rifle  law.  exception  in  v.  a " r e s t r i c t e d weapon",  to  whereby  MacPhee,  for  strange  i n Canadian  the  the  unless i t  terms  nebulous,  d e c i s i o n c o u l d be  a m i s t a k e of  i s as t o a l e g a l  be r e s t r i c t e d t h e Crown c o u l d n o t  decision,  extremely  Interestingly,  the m i s t a k e  r e q u i s i t e mens r e a :  that  of  the E n g l i s h  a d e f e n c e where  -  and l a w i s s o m e t i m e s  i s surely a question  justified  the  between  147  l a w may  concept involved  relevant  legal  c o u l d prove  concept  t h a t D knew  secure a c o n v i c t i o n .  but j u s t i f i a b l e under  in  the  was the  Another  English  23 exception,  i s R^ v .  Seemar M i n e s L t d . ,  where D was c h a r g e d  making a f a l s e or m i s l e a d i n g statement filed  i n connection with  a prospectus  with  i n a c e r t i f i c a t e r e q u i r e d to pursuant  to  s . 52 o f  the  be  Securities  24 Act  1966  (Ont.).  disclose proved  The  p r o s e c u t i o n was b a s e d upon D s f a i l u r e  i n the p r o s p e c t u s  that D's  directors  those  " p e r s o n s " who w e r e  believed,  the Ontario S e c u r i t i e s Commission, qualified Crown  as p r o m o t e r s .  had f a i l e d t o  misleading, that  there  c o u l d have  attempt  The  enabled  it  to  under  the  But w h i l e to  s.  an a d v i c e  it  know  knowledge.  that  its of  the  having  statement  the meaning  the  Code,  of  fact  others  been  the  or  that  did law.  was  The  false  legal rea.  impliedly  to a v o i d less  not  of  r e q u i s i t e mens  in order have  that  The c o u r t  as t o  from  diligence  been w i l l i n g e x p r e s s l y o r  l a w as m i s t a k e s 19 o f  t o be f a l s e  was  who  ground  reasonable  it  letter  i s c l e a r l y a m i s t a k e of  D from  have  but  no " p e r s o n s "  l e g i s l a t i o n ; a mistake  some c o u r t s  a p p l i c a t i o n of  a l a c k of  r e q u i r e d knowledge  to p r e v e n t  c l a s s i f y m i s t a k e s of  strict  but  r e q u i r e d D to  relevant  c o n c e p t was s u f f i c i e n t  of  statement  acquire that  mistake,  the o f f e n c e  b a s i s of  t h e r e were  D knew t h e  b e i n g no e v i d e n c e  o r m i s l e a d i n g , and t h e r e f o r e "promoter"  that  promoters,  c h a r g e was d i s m i s s e d , on t h e  show t h a t  to c l a s s i f y D ' s  mens r e a f o r  on t h e  to  the  flexible.  -  Thus of  in  v.  Gallinger  d r i v i n g a motor  it  not p r e v e n t  English  was h e l d t o  Board  be no d e f e n c e  d i s q u a l i f i e d that  to  the  effect  Just  a mistake  how h a r s h  of  the  to  a charge  D had o b t a i n e d  that  him f r o m d r i v i n g a m o t o r - c y c l e .  exception,  mens r e a .  -  vehicle while  from the Highway T r a f f i c did  148  his disqualification Moreover,  l a w c a n be a d e f e n c e  l a w c a n be i n o t h e r  advice  only  even if  cases i s  under  it  the  negatives  demonstrated  26 by  the  older English  D was c o n v i c t e d o f public  footways  d e c i s i o n Dennis  having w i l f u l l y  i n two  f i e l d s by  & Sons L t d .  destroyed  ploughing  v.  the  Good,  in  s u r f a c e of  them u p ,  which  certain  contrary  to  s . 72  of  27 the Highway Act 1835. with  a notice  s e r v e d by t h e B o a r d  Defence  of  require  footways  of  the Realm R e g u l a t i o n s .  dismissed D's  t o be p l o u g h e d  appeal  on t h e  notice could provide 4.  D had p l o u g h e d  no  ground  footways  Agriculture,  In  up,  the  fact,  in  purportedly  the Board  h i s mistaken  under  the  had no power  and t h e D i v i s i o n a l that  compliance  Court  to  accordingly  r e l i a n c e upon  the  defence.  Estoppel In  an a t t e m p t  as a defence misleading  to  to c i r c u m v e n t  a criminal charge,  government  information  the  l i m i t a t i o n s on m i s t a k e  practitioners have  dealing with  occasionally resorted  of  law  cases to  of  the  28 doctrine  of  estoppel.  Moreover,  academic w r i t e r s  referred  to  the p o s s i b l e e x i s t e n c e or  have  sometimes  d e s i r a b i l i t y of a defence  of  29 "criminal  estoppel"  convenient, play  it  in this The  is  i n such c a s e s .  itself misleading,  But w h i l e for  the  estoppel  phrase  is  has no u s e f u l  role  area. r e a s o n most o f t e n  advanced  i s that  to  allow estoppel  to  to  -  operate  149  -  i n t h i s way w o u l d c o n t r a v e n e  the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l  30  principle.  31 As  has a l r e a d y  the  been p o i n t e d  application  allowed  to  of  out,  estoppel  operate  it  in c i v i l  so as e f f e c t i v e l y  i s a fundamental cases that to  fix  the  limitation  doctrine  government w i t h  on  cannot an  be  ultra  32 vires  decision.  separation not, the  of  The  powers,  through  principle which  t h e medium o f  limitations  p l a c e d by  i s rooted  involves estoppel  the  the or  i n the  doctrine  idea that  a l l o w to  on t h e  the  the j u d i c i a r y  otherwise,  legislature  of  powers  be  should  overridden  of  33 government.  It  follows  t h a t the p r i n c i p l e must a p p l y w i t h equal 34 force in criminal proceedings ; i n d e e d , c i r c u m s t a n c e s may r e a d i l y be e n v i s a g e d i n w h i c h t h e same p i e c e o f m i s l e a d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n m i g h t 35 conceivably and  found  i t would  allowed  it  be i n t o l e r a b l e  i n the  proceedings another  a p l e a of  other.  would way,  To  be t o  estoppel for  allow  the in  lies  to  criminal its  sorts  of  proceedings,  be r e j e c t e d defence law to  application  i n one  but  in criminal  be v i o l a t e d ; t o D by  those  or,  to  put  f r o m whom  information.  A s e c o n d r e a s o n why estoppel"  plea  a l l o w an e s t o p p e l  t o be c h a n g e d  he r e c e i v e d h i s  the  i n both  i n the  there  proposition  c a n be no d e f e n c e  t h a t an e s t o p p e l  of  "criminal  cannot  be f o u n d e d  upon  36 a statement proposition  of of  facts  form  which  statement, is...not there  law. Thus " a s t a t e m e n t o f a r u l e , p r i n c i p l e o r the general l a w , or a statement of the l e g a l e f f e c t s the  subject  of  or which are w i t h i n a statement  i s no e s t o p p e l  of  the  against  another the  fact  of  and a d i s t i n c t and  common the  knowledge  law being  a subsequent  of  thus,  assertion  the or  severable parties, thus,  t h a t the  law  and is  37 otherwise." the  estoppel  This defence  p r i n c i p l e would from e v e r  operate 38 applying.  effectively  to  prevent  of  -  A third personam, against  not  the  150  difficulty  i n rem;  that  representor  -  lies  is,  i n t h e maxim t h a t  i n the case of  or the  estoppel  estoppel  by  p e r s o n r e q u i r e d by l a w t o  acts only  in  representation, stand  in  his  39 place,  but  not  against  the  r e s t of  the w o r l d .  T h u s i n Wormald  v.  40 Gioia that  one g r o u n d the  health  incorrect  upon w h i c h t h e  and b u i l d i n g s u r v e y o r  a d v i c e had no a u t h o r i t y ,  prosecuting municipality prosecutor  c o u l d not  representor. undertaken succeed, within  by t h e  for  the  in  great  provincial  the most  scope of  part,  h i s or  three  an e s t o p p e l  actual  relation  of 41  Crown  ,  o n l y where  authority  to  criminal  estoppel  c o u l d be o v e r c o m e , means f o r  the e s s e n t i a l  purpose of  one p e r s o n who h a s made prevented  in later  statements. to  The  D to  l i t i g a t i o n with  doctrine operates  l i t i g a t i o n so as t o e n s u r e  form of  that  i s s u e of  another  that to  the c o u r t  i s concerned to  parties,  but  the  interest  i n ensuring the  determine,  i n c i d e n c e of  not  criminal  proper  the  or  agent.  attempts  to  reliance But  even  his misguided r e l i a n c e . with  the  the  the  in  situation  fairness  rights  criminal  respective  liability.  i m p o s i t i o n of  provided  failure.  i s done b e t w e e n  into  the are  to  from c o n t r a d i c t i n g  regulate  a n a l y s i s f i t s most u n c o m f o r t a b l y  to  ought  other  justice  of  fundamentally  i s to deal  to  was  that  the  i n Canada  r e s u l t i n g from  doomed  short,  could  servant  ensure  w o u l d be a  estoppel  In  the  statements  defence  by a Crown  are  r a i s e the  statements  by t h e  information  charges  if  For  the  difficulties effectively  defence  was  bind  prosecutions  an e s t o p p e l  information  unsatisfactory  o r bound  criminal  upon m i s l e a d i n g g o v e r n m e n t they  o r o s t e n s i b l e , to  to p l a n n i n g m a t t e r s .  bulk  its  d e f e n c e was r e j e c t e d  who a l l e g e d l y p r o v i d e d D w i t h  be i d e n t i f i e d w i t h  S i n c e the  These raise  estoppel  of  the  be  those parties  them.  This  process,  rights  There i s a  where  of  where  the  wider  such l i a b i l i t y which  has  -  nothing  to  do w i t h  "instituted  justice  i n the  151  -  inter  interests  partes.  of  the  A criminal  public  i n the  prosecution  name o f  is  the [Queen]  and  42 not  to  gratify  the  objects  question  in  bound  statements  by  defendant Estoppel  an i n d i v i d u a l " .  such p r o c e e d i n g s made  to  i s not whether the  defendant,  s h o u l d be h e l d r e s p o n s i b l e f o r has  too  particular  an  inquiry.  5.  Justifications The  government also  of  For  refusal  Refusal of  information  positively  be e x p e c t e d  good  according  faith  o r as a member  of  It of  is  of  rather  committing  be h e l p f u l  Law  than  to  s h o u l d be  whether  the  or  the  offence  charged.  appropriate  i n c a s e s of  in  not  only  harsh  him,  by a p u b l i c a u t h o r i t y  whether  but  could  t h a t he shape h i s c o n d u c t to  such  misleading  c o n c e i v e w h a t more  as s t a t e d  held  Defence  law defence  difficult  law"  public,  but  important  prosecutor  r e s u l t s which are  a citizen  "the  to  the  A M i s t a k e Of  can produce  to  the  Of  a mistake  unjust.  reasonably  a focus  The  in  individually  or o f f i c i a l  whom he  43 reasonably expected doing.  believes  of  the  to  be e x p e r t  i n the  "model  citizen",  convincing  Three j u s t i f i c a t i o n s  (a)  were  usually  If  grounds  more j_s_ t o should e x i s t  be for  advanced.  of  believed  exemption,  that  "if  the C o u r t s  s c a r c e l y p o s s i b l e to  solve,  ignorance would  of  the  be i n v o l v e d  and w h i c h w o u l d  law were  admitted  in questions  render  which  the  44 administration to  so  Efficiency Austin  a ground  are  field.  of  a l l o w a defence  justice of  next to  ignorance  impracticable."  or mistake  of  In  other  law would p l a c e  words, an  as  -  impossible  b u r d e n on t h e  152  -  p r o s e c u t i o n and p r e s e n t t h e c o u r t s  with  45 "interminable  and i n s o l u b l e "  It  is  important  evidential  to note  that  problems.  t h i s v i e w was f i r s t  propounded  at  46 a t i m e when t h e any e v e n t , greater fact  the  than  there  of  "If  the  the Courts  honesty  p l e a i s one o f then  of  d i d not  know m u r d e r  hunting  at dusk,  shoot  and,  d i f f i c u l t i e s would appear  a thief  be e n g e n d e r e d few d o u b t s  about  ignorance of  reasons  that  to  fear  law.  h i s defence  If  the  no  by t h e m i s t a k e  who p l e a d s  stigma of  proving  or fact,  dishonesty  C f i r e s at D at  of  then  when  point-blank  he d i d n o t know t h a t D was s t a n d i n g i n incredulity,  t o be a c r i m e .  i n the  In  harbor  ignorance of  h i s defence  evidence.  a defendant  h i m w o u l d be r e c e i v e d w i t h  believed;  himself give  t h o s e w h i c h may c u r r e n t l y  a r e no i n d e p e n d e n t  range,  c o u l d not  apprehended e v i d e n t i a l  doctrine.  disproving  the  defendant  that  same w a y ,  and so w o u l d a d e f e n c e  On t h e  other  he d i d n o t his belief  m i g h t be b e l i e v e d , w h e t h e r  it  hand,  i n t e n d to that  if  front  that  C s h o o t s D when  kill  D might  be  he i s e n t i t l e d by l a w  represents  he  the t r u e  to  legal  47 position that  or not."  Again,  r e v o l v e r s work  defences  by r e v o l v i n g  involving  after  the mistaken  a bullet  is fired,  belief  rather  than  48 when t h e t r i g g e r  white-spirit plausible  i s not  examples,  difficulties defence.  i s p u l l e d and b e f o r e 49  bullet  are c a p a b l e of  p r e s e n t i n g the c o u r t s w i t h  that  from  or  to  as any  take  is fired,  inflammable,  as g r e a t  This  the  the cases j u s t  m i g h t be e n g e n d e r e d  i s p a r t i c u l a r l y true  if  the  defence  that  two evidential  by a m i s t a k e o f  i s l i m i t e d to  m i s t a k e b a s e d upon m i s l e a d i n g g o v e r n m e n t  information,  is  b e l i e f by i n v e s t i g a t i n g ,  r e q u i r e d to  assess the  whole of h i s past l i f e , «. 50 events.  honesty  but  of D's  a p a r t i c u l a r event  for  or sequence  cases  then the  of  law of  court not  the  -  In other  legal  the  l i g h t of  systems  153  -  these c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ,  and o f  have s e e n no i n s u r m o u n t a b l e  the  fact  that  obstacles in allowing  at  51 least  a l i m i t e d m i s t a k e of  justification misleading  for  refusing  law d e f e n c e ,  the  such a defence  i n cases of mistake  government i n f o r m a t i o n  (b)  appears  "efficiency" based  upon  insubstantial.  Effectiveness According t o Holmes,  " w o u l d be t o  encourage  by  the  admit  ignorance  of  the  i g n o r a n c e where  the  law-maker  and j u s t i c e t o  the  individual  make men know and o b e y , outweighed  to  larger  i n t e r e s t s on t h e  other  l a w as a  defence  has d e t e r m i n e d is  to  rightly  s i d e of  the  52 scales".  This  encourage  robust  knowledge  necessitates  the  utilitarian,  having  society  of  approach the  law i s  s a c r i f i c e of  as a w h o l e ,  as i t s  i s founded  upon  the  belief  socially desirable,  that  to  even w h e r e  to  individualised justice.  rationale  It  the m a x i m i s i n g of  and r e f l e c t s a d e t e r r e n t  approach  do  so  is essentially  the w e l f a r e  of  to c r i m i n a l  puni shment. The  "effectiveness"  j u s t i f i c a t i o n has a p p e a l e d  to  the  53 courts, b u t not to academic w r i t e r s . Fletcher asks, "Surely Holmes would not f a v o u r s a c r i f i c i n g the i n d i v i d u a l , however i n n o c e n t ,  for  54 the  sake of  Holmes  of  general  "social  alternative in  the  philosophical  reduce l e g a l  situation.  however m i n i m a l ? " 55  Darwinism".  a sense, offensive  hence t o  good,  Restraint  to  Ryu  approach:  and S i l v i n g "Any  human d i g n i t y .  restraint is less  to  Brett propose  restraint The  aim of  an  i m p o s e d upon men a free  t h e minimum r e q u i r e d  u n d i g n i f i e d when  accuses  society  in a  is  given  i m p o s e d upon c o n s c i o u s  is,  -  non-conformance  [sic]  with  l a w w h i c h i s unknown opportunity o b j e c t of  law.  law.  -  Subjection  and u n k n o w a b l e  to a c c e p t or  the  154  to  to  o f man t o  him and w h i c h he has  r e j e c t e x p r e s s e s the  We b e l i e v e ,  s a n c t i o n s under  however,  that  a  no  v i e w t h a t he i s a mere  i n a d e m o c r a t i c s o c i e t y man  56 is  the  ultimate This  criminal  the  law".  is a persuasive formulation  punishment,  a defence in  end o f  and one w h i c h a r g u e s  strongly  t o a c i t i z e n who has u n w i t t i n g l y  r e l i a n c e upon m i s l e a d i n g g o v e r n m e n t  proper  for  policy  objective  approach,  of a r e t r i b u t i v e  the c r i m i n a l law to  that  over  there  that objective  give  approach  in favour  contravened  information.  the  Of  of  allowing  l a w by  course,  acting  i t may  precedence to a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l  the p r i n c i p l e , fundamental s h o u l d be no p e n a l  liability  s h o u l d be c l e a r l y d e f i n e d ,  to  a  to  be or  retributive  without  fault.  readily attainable  But  and  57 demonstrably  necessary,  justification hardly  fails  l i k e l y to  disregard  to  requirements which the satisfy.  Respect for  be e n h a n c e d i f  c i t i z e n s are  the c o n s i d e r e d a d v i c e of 58  administration, authoritative  those  "effectiveness"  and o b e d i e n c e t o t o l d t h a t they  charged with  the  law  are  must  its  . i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s where  advice i s neither  readily  a means o f apparent  nor  obtaining  more  realistically  avail able. (c)  Legali ty Hall  contradict principle  argues t h a t  to  a l l o w a defence of m i s t a k e of  the e s s e n t i a l requirements of  legality,  namely  that  of  a legal  r u l e s of  system,  law e x p r e s s  law would  s i g n i f i e d by objective  the  -  meanings; after  155  t h a t c e r t a i n persons  a prescribed procedure,  -  (the  authorised  "competent  d e c l a r e what t h o s e meanings  officials"), are;  and  that  59 those,  and o n l y  those,  law defence would  interpretations  allow every  are b i n d i n g .  individual  to  A mistake  become a l a w  of  unto  60 himself;  or,  if  the d e f e n c e were  government i n f o r m a t i o n ,  would  l i m i t e d to cases of  allow every  misleading  government o f f i c e r  t o become  a  law-maker. This  j u s t i f i c a t i o n bears  a c l o s e s i m i l a r i t y to  the  "ultra 61  vires"  objection  However, Hall's  For  statements  law:  legally,  the  between  to  the  of  two c o n t e x t s  allow estoppel  would  criminal  to  i n d e e d have t h e  the  of mistake  of  information,  him by t h e  prosecutor.  law would o p e r a t e , not  law,  but  rather  it.  The  flaw  to to  a l l o w the  in Hall's  argument  and c u l p a b i l i t y : but q u i t e another  it to  of  hand,  change  in his f a i l u r e  acted the  a defence  government  c o n c e r n e d to change  responsibility for  in  his  a m i s t a k e n v i e w of  i n cases of m i s l e a d i n g  lies  to  flaw  a l l o w i n g him t o  On t h e o t h e r  government o f f i c e r  r e l i e v e D from  i l l u m i n a t e s the  c o n c l u s i o n t h a t D had  b e c a u s e he had a c t e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h to  estoppel.  bind a prosecutor  effect  c o u r t w o u l d be c o m p e l l e d t o  law communicated  legality legally,  a l l o w i n g a defence  difference  argument.  earlier the  the  to  having to  the  contravened  distinguish  i s one t h i n g t o c o n c l u d e t h a t D a c t e d d e c i d e t h a t he s h o u l d n o t be h e l d c u l p a b l e  62 for  his illegal  latter  act.  issue involves  doctrine  of  the  For the  application,  separation  incidence  of  criminal  important  constitutional  the c o u r t s  of  powers,  t o make d e c i s i o n s on rather for  l i a b i l i t y the c o u r t s functions.  than  the  disregard,  in determining fulfil  the  one o f  the their  of  proper most  the  -  6.  156  -  M i t i g a t i o n Of Sentence The w e a k n e s s  mistake  of  of  the j u s t i f i c a t i o n s f o r  l a w b a s e d upon m i s l e a d i n g g o v e r n m e n t  i l l u m i n a t e d by t h e w i l l i n g n e s s o f such i n f o r m a t i o n for  D to  r e f u s i n g a defence  into  the c o u r t s  to  information take D's  a c c o u n t when p a s s i n g s e n t e n c e .  be d e n i e d a d e f e n c e ,  only  t o be g r a n t e d  further  reliance  It  an  is  of  i s not  upon  uncommon  absolute  63 discharge. problem,  This  but  undermine  one t h a t  the  conviction, equivalent  represents  is entirely  acknowledged  e v e n when to  should a i d the  defendant  related  piecemeal.  a  7.  to  that  only  clemency a f t e r the  evaluating We t h i n k  exoneration  matter  of  defendant's  it.  a  State  a mistake  :  We a r e  under  conviction. behaviour  an i n t e g r a l  such c i r c u m s t a n c e s  The  of  right,  rather  for  of  that  behaviour,  dealing with  than  to  which e x p r e s s l y  66  or  States  something  have p e r i o d i c a l l y  indirectly  67  recognise a  rendered defence  for  it  " O f f i c i a l l y Induced E r r o r Of Law"  i n the United  a  c i r c u m s t a n c e s seem so  grace."  Courts  by  upon w h i c h t h e c r i m i n a l part  No e x c u s e a p p e a r s  be  not  such c i r c u m s t a n c e s s h o u l d e n t i t l e a defendant  as a m a t t e r  A Step Forward:  decisions  For  to  i n i n d u c i n g more l e n i e n t p u n i s h m e n t  i s b a s e d as t o c o n s t i t u t e of  as i t manages  achieving j u s t i c e .  i n Long v .  suggestion  or e x e c u t i v e  purposes  full  law w i t h o u t  of Delaware  the  charge  unsatisfactory,  a difficult  it  impressed with  directly  s o l u t i o n to  r e s u l t s i n an a b s o l u t e d i s c h a r g e , c a n n e v e r 64 an a c q u i t t a l . More c o n v i n c i n g i s t h e r e a s o n i n g o f 65 „  t h e Supreme C o u r t  court,  an " e a s y "  to  less,  as  -  of mistake of inthis  counterparts.  been f a r  However,  more  after  liberal  a late  error  the  derive  new d e v e l o p m e n t  "trail-blazing  of  law".  68  information,  their  the Canadian c o u r t s  the Cty  name and t h e Ct.  J.,  d e c i s i o n i n R.  who  v.  c a s e D,  whose d r i v i n g l i c e n c e  driving  a motor  vehicle while d i s q u a l i f i e d , contrary  Criminal  Code.  telephone not  by an e m p l o y e e o f  when a p p r e h e n d e d  driveway  essence  at H a l i f a x  defence  rendered  had been r e v o k e d ,  in order  to  was c h a r g e d  to  s.  238(3)  a defence of m i s t a k e of  law,  Airport. it  succeeded.  of  it  on G o v e r n m e n t  Although  the  was  property, namely  t h i s was  0 Hearn  with  the  he had b e e n d r i v i n g on s u c h p r o p e r t y ,  International  for  the  Motor V e h i c l e s t h a t drive  of  69  he had been a d v i s e d o v e r  the R e g i s t r a r of  n e c e s s a r y to have a l i c e n c e  and t h a t the  d e f e n c e was t h a t  have  inspiration  Maclean.  that  His  and  Commonwealth  sanction a specific  Both  f r o m 0 Hearn  and i n n o v a t i v e "  than  start,  shown a w e l c o m e w i l l i n g n e s s t o  "officially-induced  In  -  law i n cases of m i s l e a d i n g government  r e s p e c t have  recently  157  Cty.  in Ct.  J.  70 held  that  s.  m i s t a k e of conduct,  19 o f  t h e C r i m i n a l Code  l a w may o p e r a t e  the  defendant  where  under  the  he a c t e d good f a i t h  effort.  system,  a p p r o p r i 7a 2t e consult.  i*  source of  The  that  engaging  l e a s t as a p p r o p r i a t e  r e s u l t s of  requirements,  having  i n f o r m a t i o n which people would  l e a r n e d j u d g e was c a r e f u l  to  in  the  adopting  a s c e r t a i n and a b i d e by t h e  r e l i a n c e upon t h e  D had s a t i s f i e d t h e s e  7 1  to  before  and  diligent effort,  s o u r c e s and means a t  legal  absolute"  as a d e f e n c e w h e r e ,  made a bona f i d e ,  c o u r s e and r e s o r t i n g t o afforded  i s "not  a as  law,  any and  such approached  an  ordinarily  r e s t r i c t the ambit of  the  73 defence clear  to  that  offences  under d e l e g a t e d l e g i s l a t i o n ,  t h i s was i n o r d e r  to a v o i d  the  but  it  i m p l i c a t i o n s of  seems his earlier  -  decision  in  v.  of  a statutory  In  any e v e n t ,  158  Villeneuve,  provision the  -  where  had been  a mistake  as t o  i n s u f f i c i e n t to  d i s t i n c t i o n between  statutory  the  operation  save D from  offences  conviction.  and t h o s e  under  75 delegated Cty. the  Ct.  l e g i s l a t i o n was d r o p p e d J.  a g a i n a p p l i e d t h e R^ v .  defence  of  under  s.  being  towed,  238(3)  of  the C r i m i n a l  something  for  held that  emphasised that  information question, opinion, the  too  i s subject  defence  that  m u s t be i n v o l v e d it  and t h a t  the  was p r o v i d e d  it  overlapping  of  the  of  t h e manner the  offence  two  limitations.  court  that  of  of  appear these  hedging  Once i t  so d o i n g  important  its it,  he  the the law  rely  upon  his in  qualifications  need  the  defence  around  i s established that officer,  f o r D to  nature the  nature  of  D  it  taking rely  c i r c u m s t a n c e s to  expression, and t h e  in  t o be r e a s o n a b l e  by a g o v e r n m e n t  i n q u i r y w o u l d be t h e  and f o r m o f  of  learned  to c o n s i d e r s i m p l y whether,  o f f i c e r who p r o v i d e d charged.  In  was  important  whether  i s a danger  The  c i r c u m s t a n c e s to  i t s e l f must  Among t h e m o s t  account during  information, function  the  by i n s p e c t o r s  D a defence.  t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , i t was r e a s o n a b l e  w h a t he had been t o l d . into  i n the  charged  steered his car while i t  administration  with misleading information  account a l l  taken  the  i s debatable  there  s h o u l d be s u f f i c i e n t f o r into  in  termed  D h a d a g a i n been  need a l i c e n c e .  to  Hearn  w h i c h he now  t h e o f f i c e r who p r o v i d e s  information  But  law.  law a f f o r d e d  i s reasonable  independently;  closely with  he d i d n o t  the  so t h a t  where 0  w h i c h he had been i n f o r m e d  that  namely  of  having  of  circumstances.  function  Code,  his mistake  qualifications,76  Flemming,  Maclean defence,  o f f i c i a l l y induced e r r o r  the Motor V e h i c l e Branch judge  i n R^ v .  upon  be  the  position  and  and s e r i o u s n e s s  -  Despite writers,  the  7 7  159  -  t h e warm r e c e p t i o n  lower courts  have  given  been  to  the  somewhat  new d e f e n c e by  slow to  espouse  academic  it.  78 In  v.  Potter,  had r e l i e d upon q u e s t i o n whether Canada were  McQuaid J .  d e c l i n e d to  apply  failure  a Customs  official  the  c e r t a i n punchboards  illegal.  reluctance",  but  of  The  felt  to  i n a c a s e where D to  answer  w h i c h he p r o p o s e d  learned judge  unable  it  to  directly  import  reached his d e c i s i o n with  f o l l o w J^L  v.  Maclean u n t i l  it  had  the  into "some been  79 "tested other  in  the c r u c i b l e of  cases,  the c o u r t s of  higher  have  of  a mistake  of  o f f i c i a l l y induced e r r o r  scrutiny  and a c c e p t a n c e " .  coupled adherence  law defence w i t h  a finding  to  that  the  In  traditional  i n any e v e n t  the  denial defence  80 has n o t  been made  However, a m o d i f i e d v e r s i o n considered  at  some l e n g t h  by S t u a r t  of  the  Terr.  out. d e f e n c e was  Ct.  J.  in  s. 320(1)(c)  of  recognised  v.  and  Carl  81 Gruber,  w h e r e D was c h a r g e d u n d e r  the  Criminal  82 Code  w i t h making  declarations  false  forming  statements  part  g r a v e l - c r u s h i n g company. the  "ancient rule"  learned judge  that  of  government  After  or  namely  contracts  referring  mistake  concluded that  in writing,  to  ignorance  the of  statutory  h e l d by  D's  tradition  and p o l i c y  l a w i s no d e f e n c e ,  on b a l a n c e he f a v o u r e d  "the  of  the  c r e a t i o n of  a  83 carefully  c a r v e d , minor  exception  hold the  defence  valuable  c o n s i d e r a t i o n of  i n a p p l i c a b l e on t h e  First,  it  of  common l a w o f f e n c e s  the  so d e e p l y  to  can a p p l y  rule".  facts,  but  w h a t he c o n s i d e r e d t o  o n l y where  the o f f e n c e  now i n c o r p o r a t e d  i m m e r s e d as a p a r t  c a n be r e a s o n a b l y m i s t a k e n  the  of  about  the  body  of  He w e n t on h i s judgment be i t s  known.  the C r i m i n a l  common k n o w l e d g e  the c r i m i n a l i t y of  contains  a  requirements.  i s n o t commonly into  to  "Most  Code...are that  such c o n d u c t .  no  one  The  -  a c c u s e d must prove reasonable  160  -  on a b a l a n c e o f  person  probabilities  i n h i s p o s i t i o n would  that  be aware  of  no  the o f f e n c e .  Thus  85 primarily  the  However,  it  defence  applies only  is perfectly  to  regulatory  offences".  p o s s i b l e t o be r e a s o n a b l y m i s t a k e n as t o  the  86 scope or a p p l i c a t i o n of accordingly  of  the very  e x i s t e n c e of  conduct  to  investigated of  to  reliance.  The  unnecessarily to  date  to  t h a t D must  the  of  l i m i t and c o m p l i c a t e t h e  no o t h e r  Secondly,  the  to  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g c r e a t i o n of  less  demanding  or  the  environment,  than c o n s i d e r a t i o n s  for  the  be  first  requirement  and  it  is  reason  that is  heartening  adopt  it.  conduct being  a defence  be  believed  requirement,  o n l y where D ' s  "Policy  surely  have  event  has shown an i n c l i n a t i o n t o  defence can a p p l y  safety  would  require  reasonably  third  defence,  no r i s k  are  public  court  the  to  and  reasonably  learned judge's  sole e f f e c t  It  i n any  It  defence  ignorant,  charged.  an i s s u e w h i c h m u s t  in relation  reasonable  that  be l a w f u l ,  t h a t D was  the o f f e n c e  s i m p l y to r e q u i r e  offences.  l i m i t a t i o n on t h e  and d i s t i n c t c o n d i t i o n  more a p p r o p r i a t e his  the most w e l l - k n o w n  p l a c e s an u n j u s t i f i a b l e  as a s e p a r a t e so,  even  involved  that  of m i s t a k e of  public safety  law  and  87 environmental  protection".  The  learned judge  of what c o n s t i t u t e s c o n d u c t  involving  many f o r m s  i n some d e g r e e  environment  of  or b o t h .  b e c a u s e D was which r e v e a l e d of  risk  to  human c o n d u c t v.  involved that  public  gave  such a r i s k ,  no  but  threaten  the  subsequent  it  public  M a c l e a n i t s e l f came b e f o r e  in a c o l l i s i o n  indication  or  the environment  may v a r y  that  safety,  the c o u r t s  the only  investigation  he had been d i s q u a l i f i e d f r o m d r i v i n g .  safety  is clear  with  If the  of  the  degree  nature  and  -  circumstances to  conduct,  -  it  would  the o f f i c i a l l y induced e r r o r  Again,  the  enabling attain  requirement  the  if  degree  to  the  steps the  The  he m u s t  the  take  if  good r e a s o n f o r if  it  criminally  the  or to  the  risk  government  risk  p o s e d by  other  matters  It  in  if,  received,  Thirdly,  taking  into  Stuart  fact.  standard which D must  information  i s t o be  his conduct  to  to  course of  arbitrary  account both  society,  Terr.  Ct.  the  that,  the  been  there have  of  more  satisfy by  c o n d u c t has  degree  safety  to  and h a r s h t o  the  adjudged  public  s i m p l y because i t might  i s both  approach  means,  d i d not m a t e r i a l i s e ,  he a c t e d e n t i r e l y  even  the  m u s t be remembered  it  denying D a defence  liable  i n the  important  the o f f e n d i n g  it  an  a s s i d u o u s he m u s t be i n o r d e r  involved  did m a t e r i a l i s e ,  information  the  reasonableness.  is raised,  adopt  reliance provides  to be r e f l e c t e d  and t h e more  of  seem s e n s i b l e t o  defence which r e c o g n i s e s t h a t  reasonable  risk  greater  defence  concluded:  while  of  environment  requirement  time  of  h i s r e l i a n c e upon  reasonable. or  of D's  161  is  no  done;  hold D  risk  and  the  reasonably. J.  accepted that  the  88 "crux"  of  reliance. it  must  the This  have  the o f f i c e r  defence  lay  requirement  he i d e n t i f i e d as i n v o l v i n g  been r e a s o n a b l e to  i n the  give  the  f o r D to  information  of  four  believe  reasonable  sub-requirements.  i n both  and t h e v a l i d i t y  the of  authority  the  have made a d i l i g e n t e f f o r t t o seek 90 c l e a r i n f o r m a t i o n from the a p p r o p r i a t e o f f i c i a l . Thirdly, that 91 i n f o r m a t i o n must c l e a r l y c o v e r b a s i s of D ' s m i s t a k e of l a w . Finally,  Secondly,  D must  t h e r e m u s t have  been no r e a s o n e i t h e r  before  or  after 92  information  was p r o v i d e d  for D to  question  its validity.  of  information  89 itself.  First,  In  the  - 162 -  addition,  of  c o u r s e , D m u s t a c t u a l l y and h o n e s t l y  have  relied  upon  the  93 information. It the  first  i s d i f f i c u l t to  and t h i r d .  In  see what the  so f a r  o n l y w h e r e D has a c t i v e l y  as i t  sought  out  second sub-requirement  suggests that the  adds  the defence can  information,  it  to  apply  is contradicted  94 implicitly  by j-L  unwarranted  MacDougall  limitation:  was p r o v i d e d relied  v.  to D a t  upon  it.  it  and i s i n any e v e n t  c a n n o t be r e l e v a n t w h e t h e r  h i s own r e q u e s t o r n o t ,  As f o r  the  third  i s intended  to  meaning g i v e n to wrong,  even  reasonable  reliance,  fourth  information  it  the  the v a l i d i t y  believed  t o be v a l i d .  taken  into  too,  of  the  If  he  as t o  apply  i s unduly  the  restrictive  crux  of of  construction the defence  interpretation  the meaning of  if  of  words o r  r e s t r i c t i v e in  though  is  the punish  conduct.  so f a r  some g r o u n d e x i s t e d even  if  the  h o l d o t h e r w i s e w o u l d be t o  information  the  that  i s i n a p p l i c a b l e where  S i n c e the  to  information  reasonably  namely  some s u c h g r o u n d e x i s t e d ,  account i n assessing  the  by D was as a m a t t e r  i s unduly  d e f e n c e may n o t  questioning  defence  it  s h o u l d a p p l y where D ' s  a reasonable mistake  that  mistake,  reasonable.  sub-requirement,  it  the  i s reasonable but wrong;  D f o r making  suggests  the  though w h o l l y  information  The  indicate that  provided  sub-requirement,  i n f o r m a t i o n must p r e c i s e l y c o v e r D ' s it  a wholly  as  it  for  D reasonably its effect  reasonableness or otherwise of  will  be  D's  95 belief  ;  if,  reasonable,  notwithstanding  its  existence,  that  belief  i t w o u l d be u n j u s t i f i a b l e n o n e t h e l e s s t o  The  important  elements of  reasonable r e l i a n c e requirement believed that  the  information  Stuart  Terr.  Ct.  was  deny  D a  J.'s  a n a l y s i s of  a r e t h o s e w h i c h demand t h a t  emanated  f r o m an a p p r o p r i a t e  defence. the  D reasonably officer  and  -  was v a l i d . to  treat  But  even  to j u s t  as g o i n g  among t h e m o s t and f o r m o f provided  to  the  and t h e  are  D's  whether  standard of  the  personal  the  and t e m p e r a m e n t ,  for  officially  the  However,  standard  i s that  justification protect  of  The  reasonableness apply  the  that in  Stuart  a s s e s s i n g the  establish  J.  the m i s t a k e of  of of  of  so t h a t  in  not  Carl  a  Terr.  Ct.  law defence  J.  of upon  defence his  be of  own  underlying  i t operates of  the  standard  the c o u r t w i l l of D h i m s e l f ,  but  "model  concerned of  This  a was  result  not  to  of be  The  will  upon  subjective  the  Gruber.96  To  or  reliance  same c i r c u m s t a n c e s . v.  who  and i t w o u l d  conduct the  manner  depends  a c c o r d i n g to  adoption  which  officer  reason  citizen",  i n t e l l i g e n c e or temperament  Stuart  by  into  charged.  by a l l o w i n g D t h e  standard  r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of D's  Fourthly,  may,  i s accordingly that  the  the  offence  which i s p r e c i s e l y t h a t  in  the  is objective  abandonment  t o be e x p e c t e d ,  Ct.  i d i o s y n c r a c i e s of  the  the  achieved the  functioning  Terr.  fact  with  s h o u l d be o b j e c t i v e ,  standards  the  of  discerning in their  this  involve  view  refer  r e l i a n c e , of  information,  he a c t e d r e a s o n a b l y  defence,  better  reasonable person view of  i t would the  be l e s s  reflect if  desirable  They  a l s o be r e l e v a n t  the community  difficulty  t h o s e who have  citizen".  to  law to  the  of  D's  p o s i t i o n and f u n c t i o n  t h a n w o u l d be a "model  induced error  lights.  the  r e a s o n a b l e n e s s adopted  intelligence  possible  of  circumstances w i l l  C e r t a i n members  information  nature  and s e r i o u s n e s s o f  subjective.  government  reasonableness of  the  nature  what e x t e n t  i s necessary or  t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s w h i c h m u s t be t a k e n  overall  important  it  as d i s t i n c t s u b - r e q u i r e m e n t s .  some o f  i t s expression,  it,  -  i t may be q u e s t i o n e d w h e t h e r  these elements  compendiously account  163  the is  be  relevant  is for  D to  reliance. indicated that  on a b a l a n c e o f  it  p r o b a b i l i t i e s , on an  -  analogy with  the  "due  164  -  d i l i g e n c e " defence to  strict liability  offences  97 contained  in L  v.  City  of  Sault Ste.  suggestion  i n the cases t h a t  applicable  only  offences  to  defence  strict liability  o f mens r e a i t  doubt whether  the  law,  in  r e l a t i o n to  of  However,  offences.  in accordance with  the  r e s u l t of  normal  there  is  no  o f f i c i a l l y induced e r r o r In  its  s h o u l d be s u f f i c i e n t f o r  h i s c o n d u c t was t h e  of  Marie.  application  D to  is  to  r a i s e a reasonable  an o f f i c i a l l y i n d u c e d  r u l e s governing  error  the burden  of  proof  98 evidential  common l a w d e f e n c e s .  burden  on D t o  In  any e v e n t ,  there  i s an  r a i s e evidence  s u f f i c i e n t to  put  the m a t t e r  of  v.  i s c l e a r l y r e s t r i c t i v e , and  other  courts will  in  99 issue. The is the  tenor  t o be hoped t h a t  Carl  new d e f e n c e ,  but  a l s o to g i v e  m u s t depend upon  the  attitude  exception, matter. Court  have  The  so f a r  than  MacDougall.10°  for  thereafter, Registrar received  from  and t o D ' s later  important  the  because i t  scope of  to  s.  233(2)  Motor V e h i c l e s .  f a i l i n g to of  knowledge,  his license  after  application. one  to  the  i s R^  stop  the C r i m i n a l Revocation  the  Supreme  v.  at  the scene  Code.101  of  Shortly the  D appealed against his c o n v i c t i o n ,  and  of  Subsequently,  The R e g i s t r a r  of L i c e n s e " ,  he was c h a r g e d w i t h  t o do so was c a n c e l l e d ,  License"  Reinstatement".  was d i s m i s s e d .  Revocation  of  Much  which, with consider  but  this  d r i v i n g a motor  contrary  to  it  recognise  from  h i s appeal  sent a second "Order of  to  i s a d e c i s i o n of  its analysis,  the R e g i s t r a r a " N o t i c e  r e c e i v e d by D o n l y while  appellate courts,  he r e c e i v e d an " O r d e r o f  of  not m e r e l y  i t a more l i b e r a l  D was c o n v i c t e d o f  an a c c i d e n t c o n t r a r y  be w i l l i n g ,  been d e n i e d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y  exception,  rather  of  Gruber  s.  some  time  was  vehicle  258(2)  of  the  -  Motor V e h i c l e Act that  (N.S.).  w h e r e an a p p e a l  thereupon that  and h e r e b y  165  10?  S e c t i o n 250(3)  had b e e n  acquitted,  that  Act  driver's  revoked  remain r e v o k e d " .  revoked,  and t h e  of  i s d i s m i s s e d , the and s h a l l  he b e l i e v e d he c o u l d d r i v e  licence  -  appeal  until  notified  which evidence by  the  provides  licence "shall  by  the  trial  be  D gave  evidence  Registrar  judge  that  his  accepted.  D was  t h e Crown was d i s m i s s e d by a m a j o r i t y  of  the  103 Appeal J.A.,  Division  of  t h e N o v a S c o t i a Supreme  w i t h whom H a r t J . A .  one o f  concurred,  s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y , so t h a t  Court".  held that  it  the  Macdonald offence  was open t o D t o  c h a r g e d was  avoid conviction  by  104 proving fact,  "due  diligence".  or of mixed  fact  he w e n t on t o  hold  rely  defence  upon  intense  the  a corresponding is,  at  least  of  even  that D's  sufficient  if  D's  to  m i s t a k e was one satisfy  o f f i c i a l l y induced e r r o r .  i n a complex  that  m i s t a k e was one o f  society  by a l l  a p l a c e and need f o r  so l o n g a s a m i s t a k e  of  the  But  he c o u l d  t h i s day  of with  such Government,  defence  law,  defence.  law,  "In  of  l e v e l s of Government  r e l i a n c e by p e o p l e on o f f i c i a l s o f  i n my o p i n i o n ,  error,  and l a w ,  that,  involvement  He f o u n d  of  officially  r e g a r d l e s s how  there  induced  reasonable,  105 cannot  be r a i s e d as a d e f e n c e  to  c o n d u c t was b a s e d upon a p r e v i o u s Registrar, that  the  and h i s m i s t a k e was  d e f e n c e was made The Crown  the  appeal  was e n t i t l e d 19 o f  of  in a l l  s.  conduct  Here, on t h e  part  D's of  the  the c i r c u m s t a n c e s r e a s o n a b l e ,  so  out.  a new t r i a l .  250(3)  to c o n t i n u e  the C r i m i n a l  c o u r s e of  appealed a g a i n ,  and o r d e r e d  the p r o v i s i o n s  a criminal charge".  to  of  to 1 0 6  t h e Supreme It  was  Court,  held that,  the Motor V e h i c l e A c t ,  d r i v e was a m i s t a k e  Code c o u l d n o t  provide  of  D's  law,  a defence.107  which  allowed  i n view belief  of that  and i n v i e w However,  of  he s.  -  Ritchie J . , dealwith  the  i s not  i n the  difficult  c o u l d be c o m m i t t e d  evidence  induced by,  evidence  that  law of m i s t a k e " to e n v i s a g e  case to  Macdonald. the  the C o u r t ,  under m i s t a k e  be an a p p r o p r i a t e  Justice  of  a situation  of  support  vehicle  In  the  w e n t on  to  a p p l i e d by t h e  Appeal  i n which  an  law a r i s i n g because o f ,  ' o f f i c i a l l y induced e r r o r '  i n the p r e s e n t  might well by M r .  "new c o n c e p t  "It  therefore  -  d e l i v e r i n g the judgment  Division. offence  166  and i f  there  was  such a s i t u a t i o n e x i s t i n g  for  applying  present  the  reasoning  c a s e , however,  a c c u s e d was m i s l e d by an e r r o r  on t h e  there part  and  it  adopted is  of  no  the  109 registrar". l e a v e s open  the  cases.  task  The  This  treatment  door  to  before  the  is brief  a p p l i c a t i o n of  the c o u r t s  building  upon t h e work  o f 0 Hearn  Flemming  and of  Terr.  8.  reliance defence  now i s t o Cty.  J.  strict  Part  has a t t e m p t e d  to a c r i m i n a l c h a r g e . fact,  liability  information  to o n l y  the  answer  offences. led D into  limited exceptions,  founding  avoiding  to  upon m i s l e a d i n g g o v e r n m e n t  m i s t a k e of  of  Ct.  the  Ct.  i n R.  it  clearly  new d e f e n c e  elaborate  J. v.  but  its  i n R^ v . Carl  in  appropriate  requirements,  M a c l e a n and R^  v.  Gruber.  Assessment This  the  Stuart  and o b i t e r ,  a defence.  this  Nor  limitation.  Where  i s that The more  address  information that  question  led D into  in relation  difficult situation law.  such m i s t a k e s i s estoppel  have  whether  does o r s h o u l d p r o v i d e  information  i t may,  a m i s t a k e of  However,  the  Traditionally, been t r e a t e d  a useful  a  t o mens r e a i s that and as  or appropriate  the j u s t i f i c a t i o n s f o r  the  a  in  and which  subject  incapable means  of  -  traditional  rule  courts  to  treat  during  sentencing.  to  traditional  the  have t a k e n  D must  information actively to  of  a c o n s i d e r a t i o n u n d e r l i n e d by  have c a l l e d  for a limited  such c a s e s ,  and t h e C a n a d i a n  to  tantamount to supporting  the  the the  the  assumptions  The it  order  the  provision  information  was c o r r e c t .  should the  defence  example, two  rightly  or not D limited  conduct of  MacDougall but  ,  1 1 0  upon h i s  excluded.  own  Secondly,  the m i s l e a d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n .  for  him t o  have s h a p e d h i s  c o n f l i c t i n g p i e c e s of  Thirdly,  remains  be  form;  Registrar,  courts  misleading  whether  c a s e s s u c h as Rj_ v .  are  exception  threefold.  s h o u l d be c a p a b l e  the  factor  t h a t defence  s h o u l d be  and c r u c i a l l y ,  D's  of  officially  information  r e l i a n c e upon  1 1 1  of  or w r i t t e n  that conduct,  e s t a b l i s h which of  of  be r e l e v a n t  Nor  the c o n d u c t of  for  defence  was i n o r a l  However,  upon  from  of  mitigating  by a g o v e r n m e n t o f f i c e r w i t h  s h o u l d not  information  not  drawn  It  t h a t they  information.  be s u f f i c i e n t , to  r e c o g n i s i n g the  precise requirements  law.  m u s t have a c t e d i n h o n e s t  in  with  i s submitted  defence.  where D r e l i e d ,  would not  deal  have been p r o v i d e d  c a s e s where  the w i l l i n g n e s s  Academic w r i t e r s rule  sought out  misleading  as an i m p o r t a n t  but  as t o  i s b a s e d upon  such i n f o r m a t i o n  law.  be w o r k e d o u t ,  First,  the m i s t a k e  up t h i s c h a l l e n g e by  induced e r r o r to  -  a r e weak w h e r e  government i n f o r m a t i o n , the  167  D It  conduct  legal reliance  112 must  have been r e a s o n a b l e .  relation the  this  information,  function of  to  of  the  the offence  was D ' s  issue,  Of  among  t h e manner  the  the most  The  r e l i a n c e reasonable  t e s t of for  to  important  and f o r m o f  o f f i c e r who p r o v i d e d charged.  factors  it,  be c o n s i d e r e d will  be t h e  its expression, and t h e  nature  the  nature  of  position  and  and s e r i o u s n e s s  r e a s o n a b l e n e s s s h o u l d be  a person  in  objective:  in his precise position?  In  any  -  event,  D bears  an e v i d e n t i a l  168  -  burden  before  the  defence  c a n be p u t  in  113 issue.  Once i t  sufficient  to  i s in  issue,  it  raise a reasonable  a n d on a b a l a n c e o f  s h o u l d be made o u t  doubt i n  relation  probabilities in relation  to  by  proof  t o mens r e a  offences  of  offences  strict  1iablity. Whether remains  t o be s e e n , b u t  Canadian D's  or not  criminal  law.  the  i n any e v e n t The  r e l i a n c e be r e a s o n a b l e ,  require  the  distinction  courts between  mistakes  the l a w ,  to  greater  for  the  only  of  and i t s  it  caveat  which,  to c o n t i n u e  which pervades pay  new d e f e n c e  to  develops provides relates  although  and l a w .  retention  to  the  desirable, often  But  this  the  lines addition  requirement  the  in this  j u s t i c e i n t r o d u c e d by  these  an i m p o r t a n t  wholly  grapple with  fact  along  that  does  nebulous is a distinction  f i e l d i s a small new  to  defence.  price  -  169  -  FOOTNOTES  1.  D i r e c t o r o f P u b l i c P r o s e c u t i o n s v . M o r g a n [ 1 9 7 6 ] A . C . 182; [ 1 9 7 5 ] A l l E.R. 347; S m i t h , J . C . , and H o g a n , B . , C r i m i n a l Law ( 5 t h e d . ; London, B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1 9 8 3 ) , p. 188.  2.  S t u a r t , D., Canadian C r i m i n a l L i m i t e d , 1982), pp. 231-32.  3.  (1978)  40 C . C . C .  4.  Ibid.,  at  5.  MoT i s v . The Queen ( 1 9 8 0 ) 55 C . C . C . ( 2 d ) 5 5 8 , a t 564 p e r L a m e r J . "TSXTC.); R. v . M a c D o u g a l l ( 1 9 8 2 ) 1 C . C . C . ( 3 d ) 65 7 S 7 C C ) ; R. — M a c D o n a l d (T9~83) 3 C . C . C ( 3 d ) 419 ( A l t a . C . A . ) .  (2d)  353;  Law  (Toronto,  [1978] 2 S . C . R .  The C a r s w e l l  1299  2  Company  (S.C.C).  373-74.  6.  Supra  note 3 ,  7.  ( 1 9 7 6 ) 32 C . C . C ( 2 d ) 351 ( N . S . C o . C t . ) . Quaere whether t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f t h e o f f e n c e as one o f a b s o l u t e l i a b i l i t y has s u r v i v e d R_^ v . C i t y o f S a u l t S t e . M a r i e , s u p r a n o t e 3 .  8.  R.S.C.  9.  Supra  1952, note  at 374,  c.  148,  1326  per Dickson  v.  J.  as amended by 1 9 7 1 - 7 2 - 7 3 ,  c.  63.  5.  10.  [1975] Q.B.  678.  11.  24 & 25 G e o .  12.  Stephen, S i r J . F . , A H i s t o r y o f t h e C r i m i n a l Law o f E n g l a n d ( L o n d o n , M a c M i l l a n & C o . , 1 8 8 3 ) , i i , 114; R^ v . MacDougal 1 , s u p r a n o t e 5 , a t 71 per R i t c h i e J .  13.  R.S.C.  1970,  c.  14.  R.S.C.  1970,  c.  15.  R.S.B.C  16.  S t u a r t , op. c i t . note 2, pp. 268-73. The e x c e p t i o n i s " l a r g e l y c o n f i n e d to s i t u a t i o n s of n o n - p u b l i c a t i o n of s u b o r d i n a t e l e g i s l a t i o n " : i b i d . , p. 273.  17.  I b i d . , pp. 273-79. The e x c e p t i o n c o v e r s t h e c a s e w h e r e D h o n e s t l y b e l i e v e d t h a t he had a l e g a l r i g h t t o a c t as he d i d : i b i d . , p. 275.  1979,  5,  c.  56.  C-34,  as  amended.  1-23. c.  305.  -  170  -  18.  C f . S m i t h and H o g a n , o p . c i t . n o t e 1 , p p . 7 1 - 7 2 ; S t u a r t , o p . c i t . note 2, p . 273. The d e v e l o p m e n t i n Canada o f a t h i r d e x c e p t i o n , t h a t o f " o f f i c i a l l y - i n d u c e d e r r o r o f l a w , " i s d i s c u s s e d i n f r a , p . 16 f f .  19.  ( 1 9 7 5 ) 24 C . C . C . ( 2 d ) Blohm (1981) 7 W . C . B .  229 ( N . S . P r o v . M a g . C t . ) ; c p . R. v . S i g r e i d 2 3 3 ; R^ v . H i e b e r t [ 1 9 8 4 ] N . W . O " . 19T.  20.  R.S.C.  as a m e n d e d .  21.  Compare B e a v e r v . The Queen ( 1 9 5 7 ) 118 C . C . C . 129; [ 1 9 5 7 ] S . C . R . 5 3 1 , upon w h i c h N i c h o l s M a g . C t . J . r e l i e d i n R. v . M a c P h e e , w i t h R. v . B a x t e r ( 1 9 8 2 ) 6 C . C . C . ( 3 d ) 447 ( A l t a . CAT).  22.  Stuart,  23.  (1974)  24.  S.O.  25.  (1980)  26.  ( 1 9 1 9 ) 88 L . J . K . B . (C.C.A.).  27.  See now s .  1970,  wp.  c.  C-34,  cit.  note 2,  23 C . C . C .  1966,  c.  (2d)  142;  5 W.C.B.  p.  288 and r e f e r e n c e s c i t e d  54 ( O n t .  Prov.  s e e now R . S . O .  140  (Sask. 388;  131(1)(b)  of  Prov.  therein.  Ct.).  1980,  c.  466.  Ct.).  and s e e R^ v .  Bather  (1950)  t h e Highways  A c t 1980,  c.  94 S . J .  582  66.  28.  C f . Wormald v . G i o i a [ 1 9 8 1 ] 26 S . A . S . R . 237 ( S . A u s t . S . C . ) ; and s e e R^ v . P l a c e r D e v e l o p m e n t s L t d . [ 1 9 8 3 ] N . W . T . R . 3 2 9 ( N . W . T . S . C . ) ; v. L a i s t e r L 1 9 6 9 J 1 O . R . 580 ( O n t . H.Ct.).  29.  C f . A r n o l d , T . , S t a t e - I n d u c e d E r r o r o f L a w , C r i m i n a l L i a b i l i t y and Dunn v . The Q u e e n : A R e c e n t N o n - D e v e l o p m e n t i n C r i m i n a l Law ( 1 9 7 8 ) 4 Dal. L.J. b b 9 , b / / ; A s h w o r t h , A . J . , E x c u s a b l e M i s t a k e o t Law [ 1 9 7 4 ] C r i m . L.R. 6 5 2 , 657-61; Anon, A p p l y i n g Estoppel P r i n c i p l e s i n C r i m i n a l C a s e s ( 1 9 6 9 ) 78 Y a l e L . J . 1046"!  30.  C f . B a r t o n , P . G . , O f f i c i a l l y Induced E r r o r as a C r i m i n a l D e f e n c e : A P r e l i m i n a r y L o o k ( 1 9 7 9 - 8 0 ) 22 C . L . Q . 3 1 4 , 3 2 9 - 3 1 ; S t u a r t , o p . c i t . note 2, p. 284.  31.  Supra,  32.  C f . Kennedy v . M i n i s t e r o f N a t i o n a l R e v e n u e [ 1 9 2 9 ] E x . C . R . 36; G i l l i e s B r o s . L t d . v . The K i n g [ 1 9 4 7 ] 2 D . L . R . 7 6 9 ; Attorney-General v . M u n i c i p a l C o u n c i l o f S y d n e y ( 1 9 2 0 ) 20 S . R . ( N . S . W . ) 4 b ; Re J a u n c e y [ 1 9 8 0 ] Q . R . 3 3 5 ; H o i s a i n v . Town C l e r k , Wynberg [ 1 9 1 6 ] A . D . 2 3 6 ; M i n i s t e r o f A g r i c u l t u r e and F i s h e r i e s v . M a t t h e w s [ 1 9 5 0 ] 1 K . B . 148; R h y l U r b a n D i s t r i c t C o u n c i l v . R h y l Amusements L t d . [ 1 9 5 9 ] 1 W . L . R .  Part  II,  section  A3(a).  op.  -  33.  Cf.  Note,  34.  Cf.  Barton,  35.  Take t h e c a s e w h e r e D i s a d v i s e d by m u n i c i p a l o f f i c i a l s t h a t no b u i l d i n g p e r m i t i s n e c e s s a r y f o r a p a r t i c u l a r d e v e l o p m e n t , and a c c o r d i n g l y commences t h e w o r k . He i s l a t e r i m f o r m e d by t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y t h a t a m i s t a k e was made and t h a t a p e r m i t m u s t be obtained. D t h e n s e e k s a d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t he may l a w f u l l y c a r r y o u t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t w i t h o u t a p e r m i t , r e l y i n g upon e s t o p p e l t o b i n d t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y to the a d v i c e of i t s o f f i c i a l s . The c o u r t , a p p l y i n g a c c e p t e d p r i n c i p l e s , r e f u s e s t o c o u n t e n a n c e t h e p l e a o f e s t o p p e l and d i s m i s s e s the a p p l i c a t i o n . D n e v e r t h e l e s s r e f u s e s to d i s c o n t i n u e the d e v e l o p m e n t and i s p r o s e c u t e d f o r b r e a c h o f t h e r e l e v a n t b y - l a w . He a g a i n r a i s e s e s t o p p e l i n o r d e r to b i n d the m u n i c i p a l i t y to the a d v i c e of i t s o f f i c i a l s .  36.  Cf.  37.  S p e n c e r B o w e r , G . , a n d T u r n e r , S i r A . K . , The Law R e l a t i n g t o by R e p r e s e n t a t i o n ( 3 r d e d . ; London, B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1977), p.  38.  Cp.  39.  Ibid.,  40.  Supra note  41.  Grosman, B r i a n A . , P r e s s , 1969), pp.  42.  R^ v .  43.  Cp.  44.  A u s t i n , J . , Jurisprudence (1869), p. 498. No l e g a l i n t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n i g n o r a n c e and m i s t a k e o f cit. note 2, pp. 232-34.  45.  People v.  46.  C f . S t u a r t , o p . c i t . n o t e 2 , p . 2 6 3 ; R^ v . T e n n a n t ( 1 9 7 5 ) 23 C . C . C . ( 2 d ) 8 0 , a t 9 0 - 9 1 ( O n t . C.A.).  47.  Houlgate, Ignorantia J u r i s : A P l e a f o r J u s t i c e ( 1 9 6 7 - 6 8 ) 78 3 2 , 3 7 - 3 8 , q u o t e d by A r n o l d , o p . c i t . n o t e 2 9 ; and s e e R^ v . G r u b e r [ 1 9 8 2 ] 1 W . W . R . 1 9 7 , a t 244 p e r S t u a r t T e r r . C t . J . (Y.T.T.C).  48.  Cp.  op.  Wormald v .  ibid.,  pp.  p.  n o t e 29 and s e e s u p r a , P a r t  cit.  Gipia,  note 30;  supra note 28,  Gipia,  section A3(a).  supra note  a t 242 p e r M i t c h e l l  28.  J. Estoppel 39.  41-42.  28. The P r o s e c u t o r  State  O'Brien  (Toronto,  lT^TJn  B r i c e ( 1 8 1 9 ) 2 B.&  v.  Wormald v .  II,  120.  Long v .  R.  cit.  171  (1949)  (1892)  Aid.  606;  65 A .  31  Lamb [ 1 9 6 7 ] 2 Q . B .  106 E . R .  2d 4 8 9 ,  Pac.  981.  45,  University  of  Toronto  487.  a t 498  (Del.  S.C). significance lies law: S t u a r t , op.  47. and  Naccarato  Ethics Carl  Elliott  C,  Cp.  50.  C p . W e i l e r , P . , The Supreme C o u r t o f C a n a d a and t h e D o c t r i n e s o f Mens R e a ( 1 9 7 1 ) 49 C a n . B a r R e v . 2 8 1 , 3 1 7 ; H a l l , J . , General P r i n c i p l e s of C r i m i n a l Law ( 2 n d e d . ; I n d i a n a p o l i s , The B o b b s - M e r r i l l C o . I n c . , 1960), pp. 378-79. H o w e v e r , a w i d e r i n q u i r y c o u l d be n e c e s s i t a t e d by t h e r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t D ' s b e l i e f be r e a s o n a b l e : i n f r a , p . 16 f f .  51.  C f . W i l l i a m s , G . , Textbook Sons, 1983), p. 452.  52.  Holmes, O.W., p. 41.  53.  Cf. v . V i l l e n e u v e [ 1 9 6 8 ] 1 C . C . C . 2 6 7 , a t 276 p e r 0 H e a r n C o . C t . J . ( N . S . C o . C t . ) ; R. v . C a m p b e l l a n d M l y a r c h u k (1973T 10 C . C . C . (2d) 2 6 , a t 31 ( A l t a . T J T s t . C t . ) ; R. v . H e m m i n g ( 1 9 8 1 ) 43 N . S . R . ( 2 d ) 2 4 9 , a t 262 p e r 0 H e a r n C o . C t . J . " T N . S . C o . C t . ) .  54.  Fletcher, G.P., C o . , 1978), p.  55.  B r e t t , P . , M i s t a k e o f Law a s a C r i m i n a l D e f e n c e Rev. 179, 195.  56.  R y u , P . K . , and S i l v i n g , H . , E r r o r J u r i s : 24 U. of C h i c . L. R e v . 421, 471.  57.  C.  58.  C f . B r e t t , o p . c i t . n o t e 5 5 , p . 2 0 3 ; and s e e R^ v . C a r l G r u b e r 1 W . W . R . 1 9 7 , a t 244 p e r S t u a r t T e r r . C t . J . (Y.T.T.C.).  59.  Hall,  60.  Cf.  61.  Supra,  62.  Cf. Arnold, 264-65.  63.  C f . R^ Oliver (1950) 2 Q.B.  64.  C f . R^ v . F l e m m i n g Cty. Ct. J .  op.  op.  cit.  Cooper v . section  The T i m e s ,  -  49.  Arnold,  v.  172  May 2 5 t h  of  The Common Law  1983.  C r i m i n a l Law ( 2 n d e d . ;  (Boston,  Little,  note 29,  note 5 0 ,  pp.  p.  Stevens &  Brown & C o m p a n y ,  R e t h i n k i n g C r i m i n a l Law ( B o s t o n , 732.  cit.  London,  Little,  (1966)  1881),  Brown a n d  5 Melb.  A Comparative Study  U.L.  (1957)  571. [1982]  382-86.  Simmons ( 1 8 6 2 )  7 H.&  N.  707,  a t 717  per M a r t i n  B.  4.  qa. c i t .  note 29,  p.  575;  Stuart,  op.  cit.  note 2,  pp.  v . P o t t e r ( 1 9 7 8 ) 3 C . R . ( 3 d ) 154 ( P . E . I . S . C . ) ; R^ v . G a r y W i l s o n ( 1 9 8 4 ) 12 W . C . B . 471 ( O n t . P r o v . C t . ) ; R. v . B a t h e r 94 S . J . 582 ( C . C . A . ) ; S u r r e y C o u n t y C o u n c i l v . ~ B " a t t e r s b y L 1 9 6 5 ] 194 ( D i v . Ct.). ( 1 9 8 1 ) 43 N . S . R .  (2d)  249,  a t 262-63 per 0  Hearn  65 A . 2 d 4 8 9 , 1 W.W.R. 197,  173  -  65.  (1949) [1982]  66.  C f . People v . Ferguson (1933) n o t e 65 ( a d v i c e o f l a w y e r ) .  67.  Cf. Raley v. U.S. 559.  68.  Stuart,  69.  (1974)  17  C.C.C.  70.  Ibid.,  at  100.  71.  Ibid.,  at 104,  72.  Ibid.,  at  73.  The c a s e t u r n e d upon D ' s i g n o r a n c e o f t h e A i r p o r t V e h i c l e C o n t r o l R e g u l a t i o n s ( P . C . 1964-1326, SOR/64-354), which i n c o r p o r a t e d the r e l e v a n t p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e M o t o r V e h i c l e A c t ( R . S . N . S . 1967 c . 191) r e l a t i n g to d r i v e r s ' l i c e n c e s .  74.  [1968]  75.  ( 1 9 8 1 ) 43 N . S . R .  76.  Ibid.,  77.  C f . A r n o l d , OJJ. c i t . n o t e c i t . note 2 , pp. 281-88.  78.  (1978) 3 C . R . (3d) W i l s o n , supra note  79.  Ibid.,  80.  C f . R^ v . Norman J . Gene P o l l o c k ( 1 9 8 0 ) E l i z a b e t h Robertson  81.  [1982]  1 W.W.R.  197  82.  R.S.C.  1970,  C-34,  83.  Supra  84.  The i s s u e o f what b u r d e n o f p r o o f s h o u l d be p l a c e d on a d e f e n d a n t w i s h i n g t o r e l y upon t h e d e f e n c e o f o f f i c i a l l y i n d u c e d e r r o r i s considered i n f r a .  op.  Ohio (1959)  cit.  note 2, (2d)  at  84  134  360 U . S .  p.  281  Cal.  App.  41;  423;  Cox v .  v. Carl Gruber (Y.T.T.C).  Long v .  State,  supra  Louisiana  (1965)  379  .  (N.S.Co.Ct.).  106.  107.  1 C.C.C.  at  a t 498 ( D e l . S . C ) ; and see a t 244 p e r S t u a r t T e r r . C t . J .  267. (2d)  249.  272-73. 29;  Barton,  154 ( P . E . I . S . C ) , 63.  op.  cit.  followed  note 30;  i n R.  v.  Stuart,  Gary  op.  Oliver  165.  c.  note 8 1 ,  at  D o w l e r ( 1 9 8 0 ) 5 W . C . B . 32 ( B . C . C o . C t . ) ; R^_ v . 5 W . C . B . 102 ( B . C . C o . C t . ) ; v. Kathleen ( 1 9 8 4 ) 13 W . C . B . 154 ( O n t . P r o v . CtTT (Y.T.T.C). as  amended.  242.  Daji  at  174  -  85.  Supra note 8 1 ,  86.  T h i s p o i n t i s d e m o n s t r a t e d by R. v . G r u b e r i t s e l f , w h e r e S t u a r t T e r r . C t . J . h e l d ( a t 246) t h a t i f D^T m i s t a k e had b e e n m e r e l y as t o t h e c r i m i n a l i t y of f a l s e l y s i g n i n g a s t a t u t o r y d e c l a r a t i o n then i t c o u l d n o t f o u n d t h e m i s t a k e o f l a w d e f e n c e , b u t t h a t s i n c e he had been m i s t a k e n r a t h e r as t o t h e s c o p e o f s u c h d e c l a r a t i o n s t h e d e f e n c e was potentially applicable.  87.  Supra note 8 1 ,  88.  Ibid.  at  89.  I b i d . , a t 247. Hearn C o . C t . J .  90.  Supra  91.  Ibid.  92.  Ibid.  note 8 1 ,  246.  246.  Cp. the " q u a l i f i c a t i o n s " a t t a c h e d i n R^ v . F l e m m i n g , s u p r a n o t e 7 5 ,  at  t o t h e d e f e n c e by 0 at 272-73.  247.  93.  I b i d . , a t 2 4 7 , 2 4 8 ; R^ v . M a c L e a n , C o . C t . J . , q u o t i n g Long v . S t a t e ,  94.  (1983)  95.  W h i c h w o u l d meet t h e f e a r o f S t u a r t T e r r . C t . J . t h a t a d e f e n d a n t might " s t r e t c h or d i s t o r t the a d v i c e to s u i t h i s c o n v e n i e n c e " : [1982] 1 W.W.R. 197, a t 247.  96.  I b i d . , a t 243; C o . C t . J . ; R. J.  97.  Supra  98.  Cf.  Smith  and H o g a n ,  99.  Cf.  R^ v .  Kathleen Elizabeth  100.  S u p r a n o t e 9 4 ; and c f . v . W a l k e r and Somma 4 2 7 , a t 429 p e r M a r t i n J . A . (Ont. C.A.).  101.  R.S.C.  1 C.C.C.  note  (3d)  65 ( S . C . C ) ,  supra note 6 9 , supra note 6 5 , discussed  at at  104 p e r 0 498.  Hearn  infra.  C p . R. v . M a c l e a n , s u p r a n o t e 6 9 , a t 107 p e r 0 H e a r n v . F T e m m i n g , s u p r a n o t e 7 5 , a t 273 p e r 0 Hearn C o . C t .  3.  1970,  c.  C-34,  op.  as  cit.  note  1,  p.  Robertson,  amended.  29. supra note  80.  (1980)  51  C.C.C.  (2d)  102.  R.S.N.S.  103.  (1981)  104.  Ibid,  105.  Ibid.,  106.  Supra note 9 4 .  107.  Ibid,  108.  Ibid.,  109.  Ibid.  110.  Supra  111.  Cp.  112.  Cf. Stuart, 583.  113.  Cf.  60 C . C . C .  -  191. (2d)  137.  at 152, 158. at 160.  at 70, at  71.  71.  note 9 4 . v.  R.  1967, c .  175  v.  Bohman  (1974)  20 C . C . C .  (2d)  117.  ^ p . c i t . note 2 , p . 286; c p . A r n o l d ,  Kathleen  Elizabeth  Robertson,  o p . c i t . note  supra note 8 0 .  29, p.  - 176 -  P A R T  I V  HOLDING GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBLE IN DAMAGES FOR MISLEADING  INFORMATION  -  1.  177  N e g l i g e n t Misstatement And Government  As a p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r , citizen  i n seeking to  provided  to  h o l d government  uncertainty  government-controlled, given  citizen  the  prefer  q u e s t i o n s whether  i s e n t i t l e d to  recover  s u f f e r e d as a r e s u l t o f information. It but  Its  the  Nonetheless,  that  negligence.  Originally,  n e g l i g e n t words to p r o p e r t y . 3 losses  were  Hedley which  so,  This  alike. of  of  been n o t e d t h a t  negligent not only government  d i s t i n c t i o n between words  Byrne & Co.  root  of  misstatement. the e x p r e s s have  i t was a c c e p t e d t h a t  negligent misstatement,  statements  informational  and a c t s may be  fine.  t h e common l a w t o r t  acknowledge  the  n e g l i g e n t words  Symmetry was e v e n t u a l l y  v.  loss  only  for  injury  fact  or  that  most  i n the  a p e r s o n who r e a s o n a b l y  s p o k e n o r w r i t t e n , made t o  are acts  interests  t h e House o f L o r d s  Heller & Partners L t d . ,  damage  and n e g l i g e n t  sacrificed  by t h e d e c i s i o n o f  of  those  r e l i a n c e upon n e g l i g e n t m i s s t a t e m e n t s  d i d ensure that  Ltd.  Part  government  t h e common l a w a l l o w e d r e c o v e r y  liability  citizen,  damages t o c o m p e n s a t e him f o r  approach f a i l e d to  it  is  i n what c i r c u m s t a n c e s a  r e l i a n c e upon w h i c h r e s u l t e d i n p h y s i c a l This  an e x p a n s i o n  if  d i s t i n c t i o n i s at the  although  treated  and,  remedy.  the  uncertainty.1  related  h i s r e l i a n c e upon m i s l e a d i n g  c a u s e d as a r e s u l t o f  economic,  a compensatory  a c t s and d e c i s i o n s o f  Moreover,  information  to  information  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s may l e a d t h e  s u b j e c t i s the t o r t  has a l r e a d y  a l s o the very  aspects.2  advantage  bound by m i s l e a d i n g  to which the  external  a f r e e c h o i c e , to  addresses  t h e r e c a n be l i t t l e  him i n r e s p o n s e t o a g o v e r n m e n t - u n c o n t r o l l e d  E v e n where t h e  of  -  in  ("Hedley Byrne")4 relies  in  upon a  h i m by a n o t h e r ,  may  in  -  certain  -  c i r c u m s t a n c e s be e n t i t l e d  suffered  thereby.  The  court  e x i s t e n c e of  a duty of  Donoghue v .  Stevenson.5  of  178  information,  to  d e c l i n e d to  care the The  neighbour  reason l a y  which threatened  the  liability  for  receive -  so w i d e a c i r c u l a t i o n t h a t  Donoghue v . very  l a r g e amounts  restrict care  the ambit  of  the  of  damages."6  As  of  potential  has s u r r o u n d e d  to  rely  upon  r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of  the  Byrne  care.  "where  i s plain that  trusting  the  required,  the  the  where  are  v.  duty of  Evatt9,  an a l t e r n a t i v e ,  in a "special  of  largely  general  i s on t h e  it  of  principle.  keys  where  a majority  c a r e c o u l d be c a s e o n l y  of  to  a duty the  to  limited  the of  existence  of  liablity was  circumstances  and where  the  have known  restrictive  held that  of  the  c a r e as t h e  a more  Some  emphasis  or advice  to  of  Lordships  The  Life & Citizens'  the Board  to  for  relationship,  and  imposition  o r a d v i c e when he knew o r o u g h t However,  only  in  claims  in order  such a  do t h a t  him t o  i n Mutual  principle  because t h e i r  was r e a s o n a b l e  Council  the  foreseeably  held that  foreseeability  the  in  relationship."7  of  the P r i v y  and  and  seeking information  for  the  to a m u l t i p l i c i t y of  the e x i s t e n c e  i n q u i r e r was r e l y i n g on h i m . " 8 by  door  of  indeterminate  the a p p l i c a t i o n of  concept,  party  test  loss  peculiar characteristics  to e x e r c i s e such a degree  information  was a d o p t e d Ltd.  other  i n the  p o s s i b i l i t y of  Thus L o r d R e i d e n v i s a g e d the  economic  p r i n c i p l e of L o r d A t k i n  i n q u i r e r ' s r e l i a n c e as t h e  a duty of it  as t h e  negligent misstatements  statements  speeches i n Hedley  apply  for  l i a b i l i t y , the c o u r t  down no p r e c i s e c r i t e r i a f o r  preparing  gave  this  damages  "Words may r e c e i v e -  open  p e r s o n s w i t h whom t h e y  confusion  the  might  i s owed by t h e m a k e r s o f  class  laid  careless statements:  Stevenson  recover  other that  approach  Assurance  a Hedley  Co.  Byrne  upon a p e r s o n who c a r r i e s on a b u s i n e s s  or  p r o f e s s i o n which  calls  for  carrying that the  special  -  179  involves  the  skill  -  g i v i n g of  or competence,  particular inquiry.10  broader view:  and c o m p e t e n c e  Lords  Reid  "We c a n see no g r o u n d  s k i l l e d man m u s t e x e r c i s e c a r e b u t are unable to a duty to  a c c e p t the argument  conform to  narrowness!2, have  Appeal.15  discussion, to p r o v i d e secondly, advice Court  and j u d g e s  of The  that  whether  the  Australia  Council I6  that  "[f]rom the  by  skilled to  for (L)  standpoint  of  of  e x e r c i s e of  special  of  view*3,  for  whether  of  skill  the  government  Ltd.  issues.  its  Court  of  both Court  present  information  c a n be  v.  said  and  other The  than High  Parramatta  Gibbs  C.J.  said  i s no d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n  supplying information  i t s public functions  c a s e , the  for  as have  or competence.  these  p r i n c i p l e there  We  skill."H  & Associates Pty. both  a  same a s  i m p l i c a t i o n , t h e New Z e a l a n d  s u p p l y i n g i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h i s a v a i l a b l e to either  of  do s o .  take c a r e i s the  the m i n o r i t y  p r o v i s i o n by g o v e r n m e n t calling  known  a specially  i n the course of a b u s i n e s s or p r o f e s s i o n ;  i n Shaddock  persons....In  be  not  subject-matter  man need n o t  some i m p o r t a n c e  p e r s o n who c a r r i e s on t h e b u s i n e s s o f  other  i n the  it  i n E v a t t has been much c r i t i c i s e d  i s of  disposed shortly  body w h i c h i n t h e  has l e t  i n two s u b s e q u e n t c a s e s i n t h e E n g l i s h  controversy  information  although  d i s t i n c t i o n that  a duty  as i t may be q u e s t i o n e d f i r s t ,  City  of  the  a less  A u s t r a l i a ! 4 and,  i s an a c t i v i t y of  for  expressed a preference for  the High Court of  judgment  a k i n d which  and M o r r i s , who d i s s e n t e d , t o o k  a p a r t i c u l a r s t a n d a r d of  The m a j o r i t y  of  o r upon a p e r s o n w h o ,  on s u c h a p r o f e s s i o n o r b u s i n e s s g e n e r a l l y ,  he c l a i m s t o p o s s e s s s k i l l  Appeal  information  follows  and a p u b l i c the  practice  i t more r e a d i l y t h a n  person g i v i n g  the  information  to to  a  - 180 -  another  whom he knows w i l l  reasonable for that  the  him t o  information  do s o , given  practice  of  rely  serious purposes,  for  supplying  exercise  reasonable  supplied  is accurate.  important  than  transmitting  only  specially  competent  the  purposes  discussion  them.  Thus  f i n d i n g of  place  as  to  must p l a y were  and must have  v.  a test  "voluntary  for  it  is willing the  searching for However,  which  it  have  likely  facts  were  known  persons making  that  the Hedley  were  Byrne  there  told.  if  to  It  be  the  give  the  in  other  based  employees  out  in  them  may a c c o r d i n g l y be  p r i n c i p l e i s as a p p l i c a b l e to  by  its  information  i n q u i r i e s of  for  fullest  been l i t t l e t r o u b l e d  that  department  more  and  courts  Court  the as  the e x i s t e n c e  assumption  of  distilled  of a duty of  from  the  speeches i n  c a r e b a s e d upon  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " by t h e maker o f  the  to  would  regarded government  persons. have  to  information  even  contains  the Ontario High  c a r e s i m p l y on t h e  the  had i n i t s p o s s e s s i o n  Shaddock  i n Canada,  care  to  a p u b l i c body m i g h t  i n t h e Commonwealth;  Mi 1 n e , 1 8  r e l i a n c e upon what t h e y  legal  in  required,  issues reported  zoning  r e c i p i e n t s are  that  a part.  supply material  Some c o m m e n t a t o r s Byrne  competence  public functions."17  a duty of  other  be known  is  by f o l l o w i n g  t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , d i l i g e n c e m i g h t be  and p a r t i c u l a r l y  as s e t t l e d t h a t  A p u b l i c body,  upon w h i c h t h e  it  it  to e x e r c i s e r e a s o n a b l e  and d i l i g e n c e i n e n s u r i n g t h a t  skill  in Gadutsis  municipality's zoning,  its  these  jurisdictions,  lets  although  to  i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n which  is correct.  In  and n o t  of  of  skill  it  i s under a duty  information  diligence  upon  information  skill,  the  rely  Hedley  the negligent  -  statement.19  The  does  indeed play  test.  Rather,  into  or  concept of a prominent  it  inferred  181  -  a voluntary  undertaking  part  d e c i s i o n , but  from  the making of  relationship.20  However,  rise  the  great  statement  question,  of  i s government,  a statutory  duty can g i v e  care to  ensure  Hedley  "very  its  Byrne  like  it"  sufficient  does21,  to  extend  or  that  are M i n i s t e r of  decision  the E n g l i s h  addressed,  and H u l l  v.  Court  o f New S o u t h  Government v .  Sharp,  "clear  c e r t i f i c a t e " was  land.  In  Minister, of  the  damages  fact,  the  local  clear certificate. the  authority  sum t h e r e b y  of  view"  to  of  have  gives  the pursuant  is either  Hedley  then  Byrne The  something  Sharp23,  by a l o c a l  the  authority  with  the  prospective to  a charge  purchaser  took  and  negligently  purchaser  the  of of  land free  the as a  by t h e M i n i s t e r t o  recover  lost,  the Court  of  local  the  h e l d the  negligent misstatement  a  certain  an a c t i o n  Appeal  the  Local  result that  in favour  a  first  In  vicariously l i a b l e for  that,  is  i s s u e was  Housing  of  important  Government v . the  to  is  assumed a d u t y  given  such a c a s e . 2 2  i n which  a  Can a p e r s o n who  In M i n i s t e r o f  l a n d was s u b j e c t  from which charge the  of  information  generally  land charges,  i s s u e d to  the c o n t e x t  implied  M u n i c i p a l C o u n c i l 2 4 , a d e c i s i o n of  a c l e r k employed  r e g i s t e r of  of  care.  and L o c a l  Appeal  Wales.  distinct  i s t o be  i n such a s i t u a t i o n ,  a "broad  Canterbury  Supreme C o u r t  searched the  apply  of  as a  t h e maker  provision  answer  Housing  not  care  e m p h a s i s on v o l u n t a r i n e s s  a p p l i c a t i o n to  authorities of  the  The  does n o t  its  the  in  be h e l d v o l u n t a r i l y  accuracy?  itself  a statement  r i s e to a duty of  t o make a s t a t e m e n t  exercise  s u c h an u n d e r t a k i n g  i m p o r t a n c e where  whether  obliged  if  the  i s made c l e a r t h a t  special to  in  to  result as  embodied  in  -  the  c e r t i f i c a t e i s s u e d by  the Hedley the  statement  rejected, is  Byrne  not  t h e i r Lordships  Canterbury  consent  to  develop  the  negligent  extend which  there  issue  proves  In  the  existence  of  without  The  Byrne  the  under  duty  of  the  of  and New  assumption  County of  of  South  Wales  issued a the  Cumberland  the Ordinance  of  of  consulting with  was t h a t  i n damages,  i s not  care  Local  council  succeeded, Nagle J . care  of  i n the c o n t e x t  Housing  sued the c o u n c i l action  a duty  was  s u c h an i m p l i c a t i o n  Court  first  case,  argument  assumption  information  i n which  instant  that  confined  the  inter  holding  alia that  to c a s e s  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , but  i s o b l i g e d t o make t h e  in  may  statement  misleading.  the  i s a c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n between former,  the  local  a c e r t i f i c a t e , and t h e a mistake  latter,  consent only  This  t h e Supreme  result  developers  a Hedley  duty.  M i n i s t e r of  to c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n which a p a r t y  r e s u l t of In  The  has been a v o l u n t a r y  There cases.  by  had a r g u e d  as i n t h e  is that  p r o v i s i o n of  as r e q u i r e d by  misstatement.  the e x i s t e n c e of  view  Municipal Council,  P l a n n i n g Scheme O r d i n a n c e .  which  better  l a n d as a m o t e l  The  a statutory  Nonetheless,  Planning Authority,  c o n s e n t was v o i d .  apply where,  a voluntary  S h a r p was f o l l o w e d  v.  authority  i m p l i c a t i o n of  from the  relationship.  to  local  the  in fact,  in Hall  for  The  asserting that  upon t h e  automatically  Government v .  State  clerk.  was made p u r s u a n t  responsibility.25  a special  its  -  p r i n c i p l e c o u l d not  dependent  follows  182  if  other  relevant  hand,  facts  was o b l i g e d by  of  these  statute  i n f l i c t e d on t h e M i n i s t e r was  n e g l i g e n t l y made as t o  on t h e all  loss  authority  the  the  certificate's  t h e c o u n c i l was o b l i g e d t o  c o n d i t i o n s were m e t ,  and t h e  two to  the  contents. issue a  loss  suffered  -  developers  flowed  183  by  the  is  r e q u i r e d t o be i s s u e d o n l y  conditions,  there  "voluntary"  a c t the  more o f  those  theoretical  is little  2.  rather  than  Information  This  thereof,  issue is  for  specific  difficulty  Where a c o n s e n t  certain  in regarding  as a  But  the  point  i s perhaps  in favour  of to  the view  that  a Hedley  the p r o v i s i o n of  or  of  p r a c t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e , because such  in relation  authority  Byrne  duty  information  duty.  i n the  statement  the  to c i t i z e n s  form of  it  it  Or To A G r o u p  Thereof  s i t u a t i o n in which g e n e r a l l y or  an a d v i s o r y  o r an i n f o r m a t i o n  first,  and s e c o n d l y ,  to a group  bulletin,  circular.  an  Such  is generally volunteered,  i s disseminated generally,  information rather  and n o t  than  to  individuals. i s sometimes  relationship" misleading  for  excessively  the  wide  the  said  to  purposes of  information  surrounding  restrict  conceptual  information  example  It  fear  s a t i s f a c t i o n of  section i s concerned with  two p r o b l e m s :  requested;  upon t h e  issue i t s e l f .  P r o v i d e d To C i t i z e n s G e n e r a l l y  provides  interpretative raises  of  to a s t a t u t o r y  government  from t h e  i s s u e o f a c o n s e n t i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n w h i c h one  c a r e may e x i s t e v e n  pursuant  directly  c o n d i t i o n s i s not met.  a s e x i s t s on t h e of  -  be e a s i e r t o e s t a b l i s h a the Hedley  was r e q u e s t e d . 2 6  tort  ambit of  of  The  Byrne  p r i n c i p l e where  reason l i e s  negligent misstatement,  potential  the e x i s t e n c e of a duty of  liability: c a r e to  "special  i n the  namely  c a s e s where  the  perennial  that  one s o l u t i o n i s  the  of  an  to  negligent  - 184 -  statement  was made  i n response to  been d i s c u s s e d i n t h r e e information High  provided  Court  Evatt27, Byrne  of  Australia  give  i n Mutual C.J.  to cover both  by a q u e s t i o n o r  speaker. rise  to a cause of Although  Barwick C . J .  by t h e P r i v y  Appeal  r e t a i l e r of  i n Lambert v .  misstatement  a l l e g e d was t h a t ,  were  c a s e where  by p r o m o t i o n  does  Lewis31  fitted  for  fitted  where,  for  the  purpose of  safely  is  of  case  to  will  judgment  of  the  But  of  despite  its  a restrictive  the  party  provision English proceedings,  r e c o v e r from  the  negligent misstatement.  of  a trailer.  The  on a w o r l d - w i d e  represented  itself  towing-hitches  s u i t a b l e to  be  A u s t r a l i a was  adopts  in fourth  by  i n my o p i n i o n ,  d e c i s i o n of  the manufacturer  towing  latter  towing-hitches  v e h i c l e s and w h i c h w e r e  description  b a s e d upon t h e  attempted  selling  and o t h e r w i s e ,  to  the  v.  Hedley  and t h e j u d g m e n t  judgment  the  b e i n g damages by  the  in Australia.30 that  the  Ltd.  i s volunteered  Court  narrowness  an e x p e r i e n c e d and c o m p e t e n t m a n u f a c t u r e r safely  it  rare that  the High  towing-hitch  an i n d e m n i t y ,  being  its  So t o o  manufacturer  scale,  for  of  the  incorrect utterance  negligent misstatement  a defective  Assurance Co.  p o s s i b i l i t y cannot,  aspects,  information.  d e c i s i o n of  C o u n c i l 2 9 , the m a j o r i t y  l i b e r a l i t y in other actions for  i s the  the  i s s u e has  concerned  used throughout  and t h e  has s i n c e been p r e f e r r e d  volunteered  the  have  the  This  his understanding  the d e c i s i o n of  has been much c r i t i c i s e d  of  "I  action,  Board  Court  first  Life & Citizens'  stated  inquiry  overturned  of  The  the c a s e s where  later  approach to  one o f w h i c h  T h o u g h i t m u s t be r e l a t i v e l y  ruled out."28  relative  cases,  by g o v e r n m e n t .  p r i n c i p l e and c o n t i n u e d :  sought the  reported  i n which Barwick  'recipient'  a request or i n q u i r y .  which  be u s e d when  Stephenson  as  L.J.,  so  - 185 -  delivering  the judgment  concedes...that consequent  it  not c a s u a l l y ,  a c t e d upon and i t acts for  upon the  it  for is  entirely it  founded the  decision  upon  of  Sebastian Pty.  that  the  the  to  redevelopment  Woolloomooloo representation  albeit  provision  Wales C o u r t  The  plan  study  was f e a s i b l e o f to  that  damages  effect  for  inquiry the  into a special  relationship  and s e e s w h a t he s a y s  take  reasonable care cases of  be r a r e . " 3 2  to  liablity  but  Lewis  once  information. be  is indicated  i s s u e has been d i s c u s s e d , namely of Appeal  i n The  case involved  for  the  the  suburb  negligent  it  of  or  by the  Minister v.  San  an a t t e m p t  by  misrepresentation  Sydney  being  t o be i m p l i e d i n t o  or  give  Lambert v .  such i n f o r m a t i o n  implementation, was  him who  c i r c u m s t a n c e s an a c t i o n may  of  fact  manufacturer  to v o l u n t e e r e d  San S e b a s t i a n  recover  made  one o r  regard  consider that  rare,  is  s u i t of  E n v i r o n m e n t P l a n n i n g and A s s e s s m e n t A c t  Ltd.33  developers  the  as a d e c i s i o n on p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s ,  case i n which the  t h e New S o u t h  statement  the  the  his product to  the  in  has f o r e s t a l l e d an  himself  him a d u t y  retailer]  be a c t e d upon and i s i n  one c a n n o t  n e g l i g e n t l y must  negligent  reported  the  c o n t a i n s by v o l u n t e e r i n g  a r e s t r i c t i v e approach  the  if  t h e maker  and a d v i c e . . . [ W e ]  in certain,  Administering  certain  it  the  advice contained  i s actionable at  be s o . . . B u t  understandable  that  third  advice  volunteered  adopts  However,  that  and so o w i n g  information  statements  again  to  an a r t i c l e as p u t t i n g  it  or  and i s i n t e n d e d  d i s t r i b u t o r who o b t a i n s  about  him t r u e  information  it  for  s p e c i a l ] r e l a t i o n s h i p and  that  may s o m e t i m e s  and s u p p l i e r o f  prints  or  [a  "[Counsel  B u t he s u b m i t s  notwithstanding  This  every  the  said:  prove  is negligent,  information  other.  with  care i f  i s asked f o r .  seriously,  the c o u r t ,  i s e a s i e r to  duty of  statement  of  named  argued  that  inferred  a  from  the  - 186 -  study the  itself.  The  action ultimately  c o u r t was w h e t h e r  Hedley the  a special  developers  special  sought  to which the  addressed only  by,  relationship  p l a i n t i f f s belonged.  by a s e r i o u s  study  and t h e i r  liability  its  product  potential  Stevenson  in its  of  the  latter  rare  the  of  the in  of  q u e s t i o n was  it...that  before  contained  class  expressly  a Hedley  Byrne  the  inquiry...[T]he  c a s e s where  defendants  the E n g l i s h  a  special  intended it  to  that  developers  them was  Court  For  to  the Court  governed  and r e a d i t s  recovery  potential  for  of  i n the  c a s e was r e l a t i v e l y  would  economic  i n by t h e  that tend  loss  "back  former all  to  be  door."  the c l a s s  of of  case  those  Donoghue  c a u s e d by  the judgment  restricted,  volunteered  l i t e r a t u r e would  so e x t e n s i v e  v.  potential  c a r e owed t o  promotional  l i a b i l i t y c r e a t e d by  to  of  Appeal  i n Lambert  different  the ambit  a duty of  l i a b i l i t y to a c l a s s  that  Appeal  case reach  a p p l i c a t i o n to manufacturers  result  of  a s i m i l a r l y r e s t r i c t i v e approach  o r o m i s s i o n s w o u l d be a l l o w e d  hand,  take  i n t h e San S e b a s t i a n  two c a s e s .  involved  the  to,  p u b l i c a t i o n of  i m p o s e d upon t h e m a n u f a c t u r e r  with  purposes  information  This  without  i s e x p l i c a b l e by r e f e r e n c e  i n the  who o b t a i n e d  issues  purpose."34  despite adopting  information,  "I  the  be e s t a b l i s h e d w h e r e  the  i s e s t a b l i s h e d s i n c e the  and o f G l a s s J . A .  results,  the  said:  i s volunteered  That the judgments  have  who  h e r e d i s c l o s e one o f  s h o u l d a c t on t h e  acts  the  b u t was v o l u n t e e r e d  by G l a s s J . A . ,  and a d v i c e  circumstances  up,  relationship for  r e l a t i o n s h i p may e x c e p t i o n a l l y  information  to  one o f  B y r n e p r i n c i p l e was e x c l u d e d b e c a u s e t h e  s t u d y was n o t  Lewis  f a i l e d , but  have v.  swallowed negligent  On t h e  other  Glass J.A.  in  developers  to  -  whom t h e W o o l l o o m o o l o o definition  with The  to  this  liability  provided  that  made i n t h e W o o l l o o m o o l o o  part Co.  interested  of the judgment Ltd.  v.  principle  f o r general  case,  of Barwick  C.J.  "[t]he  reported  case i n which  class.37  j  fact,  n  that  times.  To t a k e j u s t  Ltd.  McFalane38  v.  preparing of  financial  accountants  information  information  cited35  of  relating  Byrne  i s sought  had a l r e a d y examples, found  or  t h e r e was no  arisen  in Scott that,  to a  several Group  in a  firm  be i n d u c e d by t h e  t h e r e w e r e a t t h e t i m e no  Hutley J . A .  the " p r i v a t e  or  another  to a p a r t i c u l a r company,  b i d , although  that  Assurance  o f an i d e n t i f i e d  o f Appeal  I n any e v e n t ,  case to hold t h a t  statements  the Hedley  or advice  owed a d u t y o f c a r e t o t h o s e who m i g h t  share d e a l i n g s i n prospect.  Hutley  c o m p l a i n e d o f had been g i v e n  Court  given  of the c l a s s  to H u t l e y J . A . ,  one o f t h e more p r o m i n e n t  information  that  o r on b e h a l f  was n o t s o ; t h e m a t t e r  t h e New Z e a l a n d  to  Life & Citizens'  the view  According  of  to  to the  Hutley J . A .  i n Mutual  the i n f o r m a t i o n  t o make a t a k e - o v e r  San S e b a s t i a n  as opposed  care i n r e l a t i o n  o r i d e n t i f i a b l e p e r s o n o r on b e h a l f of persons."36  their  i n the judgments  i n the redevelopment.  a c c e p t e d by a p e r s o n on h i s own b e h a l f  class  governs  in relation  to take  E v a t t i n w h i c h he e x p r e s s e d  identifiable  of  avoid  consumption,  case i s contained  a duty  to  s t u d y was owed t o them as members  a p p l i e s o n l y where  identified  and c a p a b l e  The f u l l e s t c o n s i d e r a t i o n y e t  i n t h e San S e b a s t i a n  contention  developers  of the c o u r t s  individuals.  issue i n a reported  and G l a s s J . J . A .  of  narrow  f o r negligent misstatements  by s p e c i f i c  plaintiffs'  was d i r e c t e d b e i n g  some p r e c i s i o n .  to information  consumption  -  same d e s i r e on t h e p a r t  indeterminate approach  study  187  felt  developers"  able  whom t h e  i n the study  -  invited  to  participate  identified that  the  or  i n the  188  -  redevelopment  identifiable class  t e s t of  Barwick  C.J.  first  instance that  whose c o - o p e r a t i o n members  of  that  i n E v a t t was s a t i s f i e d .  class.  and n o t e d  developers  would r e l y  that  since  they  government  will  a duty of  relying  namely  which  chart  i n the  area.  the  purposes  of  be f o u n d e d  loss: that  by D e n n i n g  the  L.J.  and so c a u s e s t h e w r e c k  of  Hedley  of  information  requirement  of  Thus, v.  might  that suffer  a "special to  Crane,  hydrographer  is  It  of  he  held  not  that  is  some relationship"  use a g a i n t h e Christmas  Similarly,  generally  identified  or  w i t h whom g o v e r n m e n t c a n be no d u t y o f  there might  care.  clear  a citizen  familiar  & Co.42,  who o m i t s a r o c k  an o c e a n l i n e r .  and so t h e r e  purpose  provision  consumption.  to c i t i z e n s  relationship,  that  unidentified,  care i n the  publishes information  special  knew  B y r n e was  authorities  government  identifiable class  v.  Accordingly,  on t h e mere f a c t  in Candler  i s owed by a m a r i n e  these  general  possibility.  the  were  class.4!  from  no d u t y  for  personally  an i d e n t i f i a b l e  upon g o v e r n m e n t  eliminates  care  investment  be u n d e r  care cannot  effectively  of  study  J.  as a c l a s s  Group L t d .  defendants  in the  is published for  foreseeable  duty  of  normally  reasonably  given  case the  because the p l a i n t i f f s were  i n some way  example  instant  to S c o t t  so  of Ash  the p l a i n t i f f s  proposals  for  an  same  findings  developers  and h e l d t h a t  i m p l i c a t i o n t o be drawn  information  that  the  on t h e  w e r e members The  in  relationship  excluded merely  of  that  transactions,  a special  s t u d y was d i r e c t e d t o  He a l s o r e f e r r e d  4 0  formed  The  3 9  who a c c e p t e d t h e  was b e i n g s o u g h t ,  McFarlane,  future  the  Woolloomooloo  o f w h i c h t h e p l a i n t i f f s were m e m b e r s ,  c o n c l u s i o n was r e a c h e d by G l a s s J . A . , at  of  from  where is  no  be i n a  no his  -  But  this  189  statement  by t h e San S e b a s t i a n  case.  -  is subject The  Town H a l l ,  held that or  the  identifiable class  redevelopment relationship that  between  purpose  or,  analysis,  persons  the  class:  However,  a special any  provided  Byrne  document  though  be  if  the  the  or  same way  if,  not  as A ,  which  it  a spectrum of of  fact  is for  i n each case to they  form  indicates  of  possible  direction,  non-binding benefit,  department  possible a purposes. which  an  t h e more l i k e l y  after  it  advice  and a b l e  the  as to  the  be p r i m a f a c i e  in  to  c l a i m damages  for  the  advice having  been  A's  inquiry,  document c o n t a i n i n g same g r a n t  or  his financial  the  general  benefit,  c i t i z e n B who r e l i e s  and a g a i n t o  subvert  government  and as a r e s u l t o f  or other  avail  s u c h as t o  he w i l l  as a r e s u l t o f  a v a i l a b i l i t y of  principle will  This item  c i t i z e n A approaches a  a p a r t i c u l a r grant  as to  Appeal  identified  any  t h i s g l o s s i s not  c o n s i d e r e d but  But  widely,  and w h e t h e r  important,  Thus  the  found.  l o s s w h i c h he s u f f e r s  i n the  developers.  i d e n t i f i a b l e group  s p e c i f i c the  p u b l i s h e s a pamphlet  information Hedley  is directed,  care w i l l  negligently.  department  for  be a q u e s t i o n  relationship with  financial  and t h o s e  a s p e c i f i c or  t h e more  and o b t a i n s of  the  in  in  of  whose c o - o p e r a t i o n  case  T h e r e was a c c o r d i n g l y a s p e c i a l  conceivably43,  the b a s i c p r i n c i p l e .  availability  Wales C o u r t an  defendants  it will  suggested  which that  i n i t was d i r e c t e d t o  p u b l i s h e d howsoever  information  a duty of  department  with  B y r n e p r i n c i p l e may be a p p l i c a b l e t o  On t h i s  that  t h e New S o u t h  solicited.  information,  identifiable  of  developers  the  study  gloss,  p l a c e d on p u b l i c e x h i b i t i o n  contained  c o n s t r u e as d i r e c t e d t o  specific  is  of  was b e i n g  the Hedley  government to  but a m a j o r i t y  information  an i m p o r t a n t  redevelopment  was c o n c e r n e d was a p u b l i c d o c u m e n t , Sydney  to  upon  the that  detriment.  The  -  case  i s analagous  addressed not  to  to  that  of  190  -  the marine hydrographer:  the  an i d e n t i f i e d o r i d e n t i f i a b l e c l a s s ,  but  information to  is  citizens  generally.  3.  Statements Of Law, Assurances And Implied Or I n f e r r e d Statements  There the purposes of in  the Hedley  the a u t h o r i t i e s 4 4 t h a t  advice  principle.  The  to  of  fact  be o f  great  statements  of  law,  information  assistance.  has been h e l d t h a t or o p i n i o n . 4 5  a r e i n some c o n f u s i o n a s t o w h e t h e r  for  a s s e r t i o n s o m e t i m e s made  the p r i n c i p l e i s concerned w i t h  representations  authorities  the  a s s u r a n c e s and i m p l i e d o r  More  principle  However, the  and  the  p r i n c i p l e extends inferred  to  statements.  Statements o f Law  Whether statements the  Byrne  are those cases i n which i t  deals with  cover  as t o w h a t c o n s t i t u t e s a " s t a t e m e n t "  is insufficiently specific  helpful  (a)  i s some d o u b t  of  liability  already  or  restricts  of the  of  government  legal  that  operation seem t o  statements  law.  express  Byrne  great  government  of  the  to  importance  provides  that  At  to  there  negligent  any d i s c u s s i o n o f for  c i t i z e n s with  f i r s t sight,  p r i n c i p l e to  p r e c l u d e the  However,  determination  p r i n c i p l e covers  for misleading information,  information.46  o p i n i o n would of  the Hedley  l a w i s an i s s u e o f  been n o t e d  quantities  not  has  large  a formulation  representations  p o s s i b i l i t y that  it  i t may  of  which  fact  and  cover  i s no r e p o r t e d c a s e i n w h i c h an  effect  has been m a d e .  Moreover,  there  are  -  cases  191  i n w h i c h t h e c o u r t s have  Thus i n W h i t t i n g h a m v . representation the p r i n c i p a l Powell  that  imposed l i a b l i t y  Crease & C o .  a will  liability  4 7  ,  for  such  Again,  if  i n Windsor Motors v .  was f o u n d e d  statements.  a s o l i c t o r was h e l d l i a b l e  w o u l d be v a l i d and e f f e c t i v e  beneficiary.  River48,  -  for  a  w i t n e s s e d by  District  of  upon a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n by a  licence  i n s p e c t o r e m p l o y e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t m u n i c i p a l i t y t h a t a c e r t a i n l o c a t i o n c o u l d be u s e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h second-hand c a r s .  The  statements  although  that  of  fact.  law,  Further  zoning  by-laws  for  the s a l e  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s i n t h e s e c a s e s were c l e a r l y the judgments  support f o r  the  view  unfortunately that  Thus C h e s h i r e a n d F i f o o t Byrne t o  and a s s e r t t h a t  suggest that it  and when t h e  prepared  (b)  to  there  liability "to  a similar  forms  of  commentators. speeches i n  statements of  negligent advice,  the l a w . " 4 9  raised before  record  Byrne p r i n c i p l e  i n the  i s c o n f i n e d to  other  an o p i n i o n a b o u t i s squarely  i s nothing  to  it  fact, such  i s to  be hoped  that  the c o u r t s ,  they w i l l  be  approach.  Assurances  It of  issue  adopt  that  can e x t e n d  as the e x p r e s s i o n of if  note  fail  the Hedley  may c o v e r s u c h s t a t e m e n t s may be g l e a n e d f r o m a c a d e m i c  Hedley  of  Appeal  i n Meates v .  may e x t e n d Matai  appears from  important  decision  Attorney-General50  that  of  general  ("Matai"),  t h e New Z e a l a n d  the Hedley  to n e g l i g e n t a s s u r a n c e s or u n d e r t a k i n g s .  Industries Ltd.  t h e 1972  the  The  Byrne p r i n c i p l e case concerned  an i n d u s t r i a l c o n c e r n i n c o r p o r a t e d  e l e c t i o n as a r e s u l t of  discussions  and an e x c h a n g e  c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n one K e v i n M e a t e s and t h e P r i m e M i n i s t e r , Minister  of Trade  and I n d u s t r y ,  and t h e M i n i s t e r o f  Court  Finance,  after of  the  regarding  -  the  newly-elected  factory  government's  commenced o p e r a t i o n s  four  others  were  time  of  official  the  problem w i t h bank  Development  Finance  against  ground  to take  result  instance,  that  action.51 to  the  Woodhouse  had b r o k e n  that  be i n d e m n i f i e d , of Matai creditors  The  government  their  into  r e l i a n c e of  the  serious  company's  through  was adamant  the  that  Later,  shareholders for  of  their  a decision  brought  an  c a r e by  to  protect  they  the  government  shareholders  advice given w e n t on t o  or  the  At  hold that  and  with  first  shareholders with  i n t e r e s t s of jhe  was an e f f e c t i v e  the  of  made  the  to  had  owed a d u t y  statements  issuing jointly  that  it  the  acceded  position,  care  to  government  that the  they  would  directors  employees, encouragement  was m i s l e a d i n g and n e g l i g e n t ,  upon  on  c l a i m s and d i s m i s s e d  government  a s s u r i n g the  stating  their  had b e e n l o s t .  plaintiffs'  and O n g l e y J .  action  difficulties, if  had  there  negligent misstatement financial  holdings  to  the  i n t e r e s t s w o u l d be s a f e g u a r d e d  steps  and i n p a r t i c u l a r by  the  and  s u b s i d i e s which Matai  and s h a r e h o l d e r s w o u l d be s a f e g u a r d e d . 5 3 by  the  Matai  By  i n r e l i a n c e upon w h i c h a s s u r a n c e t h e y  relation  duty of  experiencing a  had a s s u r e d them t h a t ,  i t was h e l d t h a t  a press statement  thus o f f e r e d  One  incorporated,  a receiver.  The  fell  r e j e c t e d the  in P.  government  assets.  commercial  C.J.  shareholders  them.52  but  c l a i m i n g damages  the value  On a p p e a l ,  was  had g u a r a n t e e d  and a p p o i n t e d  a receiver,  normal  Davison  development.  a s s i s t a n c e had been p r o v i d e d  Matai's  w o u l d be i n d e m n i f i e d ,  omitted  was a l r e a d y  o n c e t h e company  of  regional  t h e company  government  o f T r a d e and I n d u s t r y  appointment  they  The  forthcoming.  off  that,  before  Corporation,  the government,  Minister  the  sell  p o l i c y of  opening Matai  be no r e t r e n c h m e n t ,  was made t o  the  not  -  o f f i c i a l l y o p e n e d by t h e P r i m e M i n i s t e r .  cash-flow.  e x p e c t e d were  the  later  a c c o u n t and f i n a n c i a l  would  192  and  cause of  the  their  loss  - 193 -  of  the  value  contention or  of  their equity.  that  the Hedley  undertakings  with  p r o m i s e may  fall  provided  somebody  by  exclusive  powerful in  short  then  a professional  it."  future  action,  a contractual  give  it  effect  it  information  to  it,  hold that  However,  the  think  of  care had,  i s s u e of  receiving...a  there  request,  s p e a k e r has t a k e n  and w i l l  interests  person  as s u g g e s t e d .  the And  if  assistance  or other  reasonably  within  responsibilities,  take  the  speaker  benefits  h i s power, to  bring  will  that  the  be  the  result.  with  the  person,  to  on within  assume t h a t  safeguard if  that  his The  be bound  to  to  majority:  the  the person  has i n d i c a t e d t h a t  he w i l l  c o n s i s t e n t l y with  about  would  someone a c t i n g  influence,  in authority follow,  of  Byrne p r i n c i p l e extends  is entitled  to  view  been e s t a b l i s h e d . 5 6  r e a s o n a b l e c a r e to  he h a s s o u g h t  equipped  exclusive  no b r e a c h o f  a s s u r a n c e from  his authority,  s u p p l i e d by a man  they  he was i n b r o a d a g r e e m e n t  promise or  an  representations  c a n be o c c a s i o n s when a r e a s o n a b l e  p a r t i c u l a r sphere of  of  the Hedley  is  more  t h e G o v e r n m e n t had  facts,  a  central  p a r t i c u l a r strength  "unqualified  it  is in  to e x p r e s s a s e r i o u s  basis that  on t h e  if  sufficiently  and i n w h a t f a s h i o n  whether  and u n d e r t a k i n g s ,  that  that  d i s s e n t e d , on t h e  duty  on t h e  assurances  the  fact  and c o u l d d e c i d e w h e t h e r  government's  "I  i n the  "although  and who  the  person  subject matter  d i s c h a r g e d i n a s i t u a t i o n where  Cooke J .  that  the  assurances  nonetheless  alone  some o t h e r  were  met."55  let  to  be r e c e i v e d as a f a r  negligence lay  control  stating  t o be a c t e d upon  c l a i m of not  summarily with  t h a n mere o p i n i o n w h e t h e r  c a p a c i t y o r by i n the  dealt  commitment  i s l i k e l y to  They w e n t on t o  5 4  Lordships  p r i n c i p l e does n o t e x t e n d  who i n t e n d s  and i n t e r e s t e d enough upon  of  surely  p i e c e of  Byrne  r e s p e c t to  p o s i t i o n to  Government,  Their  acts  certain  do w h a t  other duty....extended  is  -  here...to possible  taking any  194  reasonable  steps  assurances given  not c r y s t a l l i s e d i n t o The  -  to  to c a r r y the  o f Meates  v.  action  breach of  judgment Trees  of Denning  House L t d .  doctrine  of  other the  ,  in Central  i n which  promissory  considerably emphasized  5 8  J.  further  that  d o c t r i n e of  than  namely as to  every that  the  promissory  if  But Meates  Subsequent  estoppel doctrine  promise contains  future.61  learned judge  p r o m i s e was n o t  contract.59  the promise  decision invites  truly  the  But  the  commonest c a s e i s t h a t  by f a r  fulfil  subsequently for at  fails  deceit.64 one p o i n t  at  the  to  do s o .  In Meates stated  that  time  v.  fixed  intention  no i n t e n t i o n upon  the  if  that,  6 5  at  But the  it,  J. any  that  any  present  some  [of  the  of  deceit.52  intends  to  reason  c a n be no  Woodhouse  fact,  intention  intention  promisor  for  of  Of  P.  liability  and Ongley  government]  and a f o r t i o r i  the  if  there  J.  were  were made a t a t i m e when t h e r e was  t h e i r Lordships time  goes  action,  statement  i n damages f o r  but  representations they  the  i n damages on  promisor's  such a c a s e , t h e r e  t o meet t h e c o m m i t m e n t  at a l l . "  a finding  n  the  High  no new c a u s e o f  inferred  Attorney-General,  "the  c e r t a i n l y made n e g l i g e n t l y  j  an  i n which Denning  i n which the  he makes  5 3  extends  d e c i s i o n s have c o n f i r m e d  p r o m i s o r may be made l i a b l e  h i s promise  v.  formulated  actionable  i s made w i t h o u t  it,  had  c o n s i d e r a t i o n by a s i d e w i n d . 5 0  represents  fulfilling  it  to c r e a t e  Trust Ltd.  case,  an i m p l i e d o r  a promise  is that  Attorney-General  has c r e a t e d of  they  p a r a l l e l s with  first  v.  d i d the High Trees  s u c h as w o u l d a b o l i s h t h e course,  the  though  as e f f e c t i v e l y  London P r o p e r t y  estoppel.  a breach of  b a s i s than  The  reasonably  obligations."57  Attorney-General  B y r n e p r i n c i p l e i n s u c h a way promise.  as  even  contractual  the Hedley for  as f a r  shareholders,  precisely defined  importance  out  had  no  been  d i d not  base t h e i r  judgment  representations  were m a d e ,  the  - 195 -  g o v e r n m e n t had no i n t e n t i o n , Their  imposition  unqualified  of  liability  representations  G o v e r n m e n t had e x c l u s i v e fashion to  they would  i s made c l e a r i n t h e  take  the  reasonable  sought  to  beyond  the  control  "to  influence,  which  is  of  the  w i t h whom he i s i n a s p e c i a l  i n damages.  place  The  the  relationship  reasonable Byrne_68.  care to The  a duty,  fulfil  common  sidewind. have t h e principle same  and i t The effect  of  Meates  the  to  formulation creating to  of  the  for  for  a l l o w Hedley Byrne  with  to  has goes  to  of  to  t h a t duty  to  permit  i n damages, to  far  being  is  to  whom he i s i n  of  Hedley  the  breach  other  than  estoppel  promise;  a  exercise  be u n d e r m i n e d  promissory  breach  he  exercise  is a distortion  refused  of  will  essential  to  of  point  promise  Attorney-General  that refusal  doctrine  an a c t i o n  a duty  i n damages,  be a c t i o n a b l e  a  This the  Byrne  information  a breach v.  what  and  person  principle,  another  This  l a w has t r a d i t i o n a l l y  and a u t h o r i t y  result.  to  that promise.  is unsatisfactory  of  of  relationship  also actionable  an a s s u r a n c e o r u n d e r t a k i n g  contract,  has t a k e n  the  The  r e c e i p t of  as s u g g e s t e d . " 6 7  information,  effect  and i n  promises.  p l a c e on a p e r s o n who p r o v i d e s  upon a p e r s o n who makes a p r o m i s e  special  of  interests  "that  a l l o w Hedley  broken  speaker  the H e d l e y Byrne  in providing  fact  them.  i n a s i t u a t i o n where  that the  the  acts  another  actionable  for  Cooke J .  of  care  honouring  on t h e  i n essence to  i n damages  purpose  reasonable  discharged  assume t h a t  of  rather  of  and c o u l d d e c i d e w h e t h e r  t h a t person  limits i s to  not  safeguard  if  intention,  founded  This  assertion  care to  natural  were  a remedy  recipient  no f i x e d  was  be m e t . " 6 6  be u s e d t o p r o v i d e  entitles  or  it  in  by  did  not  strains  be u s e d t o a c h i e v e  a  the  - 196 -  (c)  Implied or  It statements,  Inferred  i s clear that whether  the e x t e n t  Statements  oral69  to w h i c h ,  if  at  the Hedley  Byrne  or w r i t t e n . 7 0 a l l , the  p r i n c i p l e a p p l i e s to  But  there  into  or i n f e r r e d from words or c o n d u c t .  Canada,  have  been p r e p a r e d t o  inferred  from l i c e n c e s ,  recognize  relevant  were  i s s u e d was p r o p e r l y  statutory  or o t h e r  was t h e r e  any d i s c u s s i o n o f  liability  was f o u n d e d .  beyond  of  Ltd.  that  the enactment  of  that  t h e e n a c t m e n t was v a l i d .  of  the c o u r t s  including  soil The  Commonwealth of  Appeal  have  Again,  d i d not  i n Bowen v .  treat  a council  r e p l o t p l a n as c o n t a i n i n g a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n had been g i v e n t o a l l m a t t e r s  statement  that  Court  the  these cases  upon  of  or  to  which  Thus, Canada  go  in held  involve  a  City  Edmonton74,  of  in  have  been r e l u c t a n t t o  t h e Supreme  a municipal by-law  to  i n none o f  i m p l i c a t i o n or i n f e r e n c e .  Winnipeg73,  refused  the  are  implied into  p r o c e s s e d 7 * , or complied with  nature  to  notably  a p p l i c a t i o n pursuant  the  Vlelbridge Holdings  A l b e r t a Supreme C o u r t  the  However,  a r e l a t i v e l y low l e v e l  Some c o u r t s ,  Thus such documents  scheme.72  Moreover,  v.  that  as  statements which  representations  consents or permits.  been h e l d t o c o n t a i n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s which they  i s some d o u b t  p r i n c i p l e covers  implied  express  representation the  r e s o l u t i o n to approve adequate  a  consideration  to which a s u b d i v i s i o n plan i s d i r e c t e d ,  stability. f u l l e s t d i s c u s s i o n of  this  in  the  o c c u r r e d i n t h e San S e b a s t i a n c a s e , a d e c i s i o n o f  the  o f New S o u t h W a l e s t h e b r i e f  issue yet  f a c t s of  reported  w h i c h have  already  Court been  - 197 -  rehearsed. of may  the  All  nature  apply.  recovery  of  of  the judgments  the  representations  According  for  statement  & Associates Pty.  Ltd.  of  draw a t t e n t i o n  equivalent  to  to  a positive  learned judge, which  representation  the  implications consider  by  now."78  branches of  the  the  liablity  a c c u r a c y of accuracy,  reasonable information  Shaddock..,  l i m i t of  the e f f e c t  information  care that expressly to  the  will  given,  know t h a t  and c a n n o t  let  his  language  suffice  the  I would  it  of  that  express  is in  "many  it  the  beyond  to  rely  give  part  in  the  way  on  plaintiff. [such  that  the its  accurate  he i s w i l l i n g t o  that  and  t o be f u n d a m e n t a l  intends  to  and  expressed...1  what i s e x p r e s s e d  information,  b u t movement  most  statement  i s accurate except with  by him t o  express  this that  the  a  assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r  be known  information  was  has an i m p o r t a n t  take  plaintiff  cannot  said  as a d i r e c t c o n s e q u e n c e o f  he i s b e i n g t r u s t e d  imparted  giving  stating  as  The  study  (L)  failure  treated  "we b e l i e v e  l i n e between  express  Shaddock  That c a s e ,  i n c l u d e d i n what i s  principle  - j n which the  the Woolloomooloo  to  has been f o r m u l a t e d . that  namely  inference."77  was more e x p a n s i v e ,  the  Byrne  view  one c a s e i n w h i c h  Council761  i s a d i s t i n c t i o n between  from  b e i n g aware  i s only  its existence.  a s i m i l a r demarcation  cannot  information  tantamount  of  negligent misrepresentation  a defendant,  there  City  into  not  a restrictive  t o a p a r t i c u l a r f a c t was  defendant  law t h e r e  ,  has been a l l o w e d ,  outer  imply  Glass J.A.  w h a t may be i n f e r r e d law of  the  and i n f e r e n c e s  that  the  denial  to  7 5  Parramatta  "represents  he was p r e p a r e d  feasible  v.  case adopted  to which the Hedley  to H u t l e y J . A .  an i n f e r r e d  the c o u n c i l  in that  exercise respect  Conduct as t h a t  point will  which  in]  not,  to  I  is  -  believe, J.A.  satisfy  held that  statement  the  198  requirements  a statement  for  addition  principle." purposes  defendant.  the p l a i n t i f f  t o what i s s a i d of  of  the  a c t u a l l y made by t h e  i m p l i c a t i o n which  -  may  facts  ,  of  It  albeit  or  Similarly,  7 9  Hedley  Byrne  does not  "is a  include  reasonably,  assumptions  Mahoney  an  draw f r o m  s u p p l i e d by  the  the  plaintiff."80 The to c r i t i c i s m itself  statements.  a voluntary statement  into  on s e v e r a l  which r u l e s out  inferred  Byrne  judgments  or  special  from  exists made  implying or to  w h i c h were  it  estoppel84, father  to  the  i s beyond  of  a statement the  contract85,  within  the  Hedley be  of  context  although  branches  This  of  of  inferred.  the  which i s  principle.  Thirdly,  Indeed, of  of  Appeal.  law a c c e p t respect  f i r s t cousin to, all  of  in  in  n o n e  i s the case w i t h  deceit86,  is  to  difficulty  responsibility  Wales C o u r t  a  as  there  s h o u l d be l i t t l e  t h e New S o u t h other  implied  p r i n c i p l e may a p p l y  i m p l i e d or  for  negligent  to  the  need  such a u t h o r i t y  assumption of  inferred.  Byrne  of  or  the  cases already mentioned839  that  and e v e n  there  upon  itself  duty82}  themselves  attention  the Hedley  implied  speeches i n  that  Byrne  a statutory  "licence"  dispute  fact  the Hedley  of  the  responsibility is  which are  may be i m p l i e d o r  of,  i s c l e a r from  inferring a voluntary  drawn  statements  not  as i t  voluntariness,  the  l i a b i l i t y for  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y by t h e maker  i n pursuance  o u t by  i s nothing  e m p h a s i s p l a c e d by G l a s s J . A .  In v i e w o f  of  there  i m p o s i t i o n of  indicates that  statements  i s borne  Secondly,  Byrne  First,  the making of  s u c h c a s e s no e l e m e n t  this  i n Hedley  of  relationship.81  relation  grounds.  s u c h an a s s u m p t i o n  statements  in  open  The  assumption  inferred  presently  i s s u e are  the  i s unwarranted,  that  i n t h e San S e b a s t i a n c a s e on t h i s  their  that to if  - 199 -  Lordships itself  approved  Shaddock,  an e x a m p l e  of  l i a b i l i t y founded  t h a t case i s c o r r e c t , line  between  it  i m p l i e d or  those which are  not.  is difficult inferred  To  assert  tantamount or e q u i v a l e n t problem,  not  to  as t h e y were  solve  to  and  of  Appeal  inferred  discussion all  acts,  aspects, remedy  of  into  inferred  to  ensuring  that only  or  inferred  are allowed rather  such s t a t e m e n t s ,  Competence  be i m p o s e d f o r  is  statement.  If  dividing  a  and  statement  i s merely  to  recast  the  restrictive  i s of  particular  a loss  The  those to to  approach case to  of  the  g o v e r n m e n t have A citizen  as a r e s u l t o f  because  the  efforts  statements attract  excluding  the  of  importance  to  the  be d e n i e d  i s one w h i c h  But  the c o u r t s  the  because  h i s r e l i a n c e upon  such i s the should  w h i c h may r e a s o n a b l y  from  a  informational  should not  statement  application  the  implied  m i s l e a d i n g government i n f o r m a t i o n ,  however r e a s o n a b l e  And  concerned  from government c o n d u c t .  case.  than  Liability not  for  government, merely  t h e San S e b a s t i a n  principle,  Shaddock  acceptable  i n t h e San S e b a s t i a n  The m a t t e r  remedies  of  4.  Wales  he h a s s u f f e r e d  or  which are  statement  for  o m i s s i o n s and d e c i s i o n s o f  where  Yet  d i s c e r n an a p p r o p r i a t e  t h a t Shaddock  an e x p r e s s  New S o u t h  the  do.  it.  statements.  of  to  upon w h i c h c i t i z e n s may r e l y .  statement implied  of  to  upon an i n f e r r e d  statements  T h e r e i s no j u s t i f i c a t i o n Court  bound  of  scope of  the  be  a  he effect  directed  be so  Hedley  implied Byrne  that principle  i m p l i c a t i o n or  inference.  the Hedley Byrne  principle  all  Expertise in accordance with a statement  made by a g o v e r n m e n t o f f i c e r  where  a  will that  -  statement officer  Tne or  between  the  relation d i d not  of  of  to  the  light  the  statement  the  citizen  the  and t h e  of  d i d not  the  exemplify  citizen so t h a t  position  this  other  the  and  The  liable  for  build  to  a house  council  kept  regard  on t h e  "clearly the  the  effect  no r e c o r d s w i t h  h i s mind  Furthermore,  to  the  sphere  to  the  to  to  location  of  the  by  on h i s p a r t  to  advise  council  its  building  flooding.  plaintiffs  by  the  to  relied  in  the in  not The  that  inspector relation  and t h e r e  about  it,  the  should  building  responsibility  of  Heathcote  his advice,  expertise"91t  t h a t the  exceeded  they  and  in  content  who made  hold  susceptible  giving  of  illustrated  plaintiffs  flooding,  citizen statements  the  i n Brown v .  h i s area of  was no e v i d e n c e  is  the  be w h e t h e r ,  officer  was  there  of  statement  declined  in fact  In  will  rule  on  in  the  officer's  was no r e a s o n why  respect  area Drainage Board.  boundaries...[which] of  there  on a s i t e w h i c h was  directed  assumption  that  the  New Z e a l a n d  provided  the  of  that  question  general  i n which H a r d i e Boys J . advice  r  in particular  have known t h a t  or e x p e r t i s e .  care  0  that  relationship"  no d u t y  the  of  proceed  within  officer's  important  County C o u n c i l 9 0 ,  inspector  upon  the  to matters  matters;88  rely,  rule  "special  he was u n d e r  of  s h o u l d have known  general  the  and f u n c t i o n  the High C o u r t of  i n damages  knew o r  that  f a l l i n g outside the  or e x p e r t i s e  was l i m i t e d  reasonably  should  competence  d e c i s i o n of  either  circumstances,  and t h e  knew o r  competence  namely,  in every c a s e , all  of  concerning  of m a t t e r s  competence.89  which  officer,  or  -  citizen  bases:  statements  rely,  officer's  two  the  area  and t h e  officer  respect  the  authorities  both  competence  in  outside  concerned,  fact.87 either  falls  200  was  to "no  flooding."92  actually  relied  on  -  the  inspector  was e v i d e n c e aware  to to  advise  expertise  Drainage  Board  Sharadan  Builders of  applied  of  misstatement, r e l a t e d only municipal  v.  Mahler93,  of  the  ground  to m u n i c i p a l  officers  were  permits  than  those  Furthermore,  in  be i m p o s e d w h e r e the matter  himself. Town o f  the  Thus one o f the  Pas v .  the m u n i c i p a l i t y  to  i m p o s e d by t h e  officer  the the  p r o c e s s i n g company,  action  issues before  by  permits  the  would He was  inspector  that  the  them by  reason  authority. for  by  solicitor  land,  The  of  Ontario  negligent  the  solicitor  r e p l i e s of  officers  requirements  for  had  the professed  building  municipality. the Hedley Byrne  relates  principle  knowledge than  t h e Supreme  P o r k y P a c k e r s 9 4 was w h e t h e r  that certain  the  The  has no g r e a t e r  information  had n e g l i g e n t l y  completion  building  and was r e f u s e d  upon  the  and b u i l d i n g b y - l a w s .  purchasing  he was  is provided  building  and t h e r e f o r e  advise  to  there  that  in  i n q u i r i e s made by h i s  l i a b i l i t y under  to which  whether  plaintiff's  trial  the p l a i n t i f f ' s  conservation  the  at  example  prior  s i m i l a r l y so l i m i t e d .  or e x p e r t i s e  not  After  and i n d e e d  resided  A further  and t h e m u n i c i p a l  by-laws,  no c o m p e t e n c e other  flooding  the zoning  regional  that  admitted  land,  building permits  d i s m i s s e d the  on t h e  of  the m u n i c i p a l i t y  clerk  flooding,  in which,  certain  be a v a i l a b l e . for  to  Brown  the c o u n c i l .  i m p o s e d by  Appeal  Mr.  in  purchase of  would  restrictions Court  for  i n the matter