In the event that the appellant was owed a duty of fairness in the making of the decision to ban smoking at Oak Ridge, I believe this duty was satisfied. As L’Heureux-Dubé wrote in Knight v. Indian Head School Division No. 19 1990 CanLII 138 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 653, at p. 682, "the concept of procedural fairness is eminently variable and its content is to be decided in the specific context of each case". Given the nature of the decision to prohibit smoking, I believe that the appellant had sufficient opportunity to be heard.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.