Risk Assessment and administrative decisions

Post subject: Assessment of Risk and the Review of Administrative Decision

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"the interests of public safety and flood mitigation are also
extremely important priorities."

Take this sentence and break it down: it comes from PWGSC employee NESS:

Now take a look at recent decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada:

30322 Balvir Singh Multani et al v. Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys et al

Its a fascinating case which addresses administrative decisions:
There was a case settled in the Supreme Court of Canada which involved a school board and a Sikh student that carried a Kirpan or ceremonial dagger. The school board decided to bannish the student saying that the Kirpan presented a danger.

The Supreme court ruled that the board was acting on a perceived danger without any tangible evidence that the danger was real or imminent, in fact, there had never been an incident.

What it means to me, is that when a statement like:

"the interests of public safety and flood mitigation are also
extremely important priorities."

are made, there must be substantiation. There may be risks, and no situation can be made absolutely safe. What is the true risk of a 10,000 year flood? Are there weather forecasts that indicate this? What are the factors being used to make a decision.

In controlling the water at Minden: what are the facts? Do you know: does anybody know?

IF there are no facts, then there are grounds to appeal administrative decisions. That is my read of it.

From the case in question: a fascinating read.


98 ..." In these circumstances, the argument relating to safety can no longer reasonably succeed."


99 ..." By disregarding the right to freedom of religion, and by invoking the safety of the school community without considering the possibility of a solution that posed little or no risk, the school board made an unreasonable decision. "


http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2006/2006scc6/2006scc6.html

Citation: Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 256, 2006 SCC 6

Date: 20060302 Docket: 30322

between:

Balvir Singh Multani and Balvir Singh Multani,
in his capacity as tutor to his minor son Gurbaj Singh Multani
Appellants

v.

Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys and
Attorney General of Quebec
Respondents

‑ and ‑

World Sikh Organization of Canada, Canadian Civil
Liberties Association, Canadian Human Rights
Commission and Ontario Human Rights Commission
Interveners
_________________
Working hard to safeguard paddling assets for all Canadians