Case Brief Wiki


Brosseau was a solicitor who prepared the prospectus of a company that later went into bankruptcy. The Alberta Securities Commission launched an investigation into Brosseau’s actions. Brosseau argued that the Commission suffered from institutional bias due to Chair's multiple functions, which allowed him to initiate investigations, prosecute people, and then act as a judge on the panel determining their case, i.e. he/she involved at both the investigatory and adjudicatory levels. The Commission disagreed – they argued that while not specifically authorized by statute, implicit authority for the investigation could be found in the general scheme of the Securities Act.


  1. Is institutional bias acceptable if it is authorized by statute?


Appeal dismissed.


L'Heureux-Dubé, writing for the court, held that as a general principle, a person is entitled to an independent, impartial decision-maker, the nemo judex in causa sua esse principle. In general, it is not permitted for members of an adjudicatory panel to also be involved in the investigatory stages of a proceeding, as this would give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

However, statutory authorization for overlapping functions are an exception to this rule, subject to the statute being consitutional. Admininstrative bodies are created for a variety of reasons and to respond to a variety of needs. In some cases, the legislature may decide that in order to achieve the ends of the statute, it is necessary to allow for an overlap in functions that would, in normal judicial proceedings, have to be kept separate. If a certain degree of overlapping of functions is authorized by statute, then, to the extent that it is authorized, it will not generally be subject to any reasonable apprehension of bias test.

Applying this to the case at bar, here the authorization is "implicit"; the 'Act contemplates the involvement of the Chair at several stages of the proceedings. The public interest role of the Commission could not be carried out without informal investigations/reviews of this sort. Securities acts are aimed at regulating the market and protecting the general public - this must be recognized in determining how to interpret their acts.

It is clear from its empowering legislation that, in such circumstances, the Commission is not meant to act like a court, and that certain activities which might otherwise be considered "biased" form an integral part of its operations.


  • Administrative decision makers are created for a variety of reasons to meet a variety of needs.
  • In some instances, an overlap in functions (which is generally not permitted on account of bias) is a necessary element to fulfilling an decision maker's mandate. Provided that the particular decision-maker is not acting outside its statutory authority (and the governing statute is constitutional), an overlap in functions may not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.