(Quebec) The appellant, who was a member of the respondent benevolent and pension society, had been obliged to resign from the police force. Under those circumstances he became entitled according to the rules to have his case for a gratuity or pension considered by the board of directors and his right to such gratuity or pension determined by a majority of the board.
Held: They had to observe ‘the elementary principles of justice’. The so-called determination of the board was void and of no effect and the order which the Board humbly advised included a declaration and determination as required by the rules and that the proceedings were null and void.
Lord Macnaghten said: ‘They first appointed a committee of four from their own body to investigate the reason of Lapointe’s resignation. There would have been no objection to this course if the committee had been deputed to consider and report whether or not there was a prima facie case for inquiry. But what the committee did was to listen to all sorts of stories about Lapointe’s past history, and rake up everything that was against him during his connection with the force. Then, without telling Lapointe what the charges against him were, or giving him any opportunity of defending himself, they advised the board that the pension should be refused. Thereupon the board abnegated their judicial duties altogether. They summoned a general meeting of the members, and submitted a question, which they were bound to determine themselves, to a popular vote. The meeting was held on April 26, 1892, when by a large majority of the members present it was resolved that Lapointe’s name should not be entered on the pension roll of the society.
The whole of these proceedings were irregular, contrary to the rules of the society, and above all contrary to the elementary principles of justice. And the position of the board was certainly not improved by a formal resolution stating solemnly, what was contrary to the truth, that after having inquired into the facts and circumstances which brought about Lapointe’s resignation, and having deliberated upon his claim, the board ‘ decides that the pension on which he claims be refused, seeing that he was obliged to tender his resignation’.’
Lord Macnaghten
[1906] UKPC 56, [1906] AC 535, [1906] UKLawRpAC 36
Bailii, Commonlii
Canada
Cited by:
Cited – Ridge v Baldwin (No 1) HL 14-Mar-1963
No Condemnation Without Opportunity For Defence
Ridge, a Chief Constable, had been wrongfully dismissed because he was not given the opportunity of presenting his defence. He had been acquitted of the charges brought against him, but the judge at trial had made adverse comments about his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 October 2021; Ref: scu.419774 br>