Does a Minister of Justice have a duty of procedural fairness owed to the applicants?

Although the Minister’s primary duty was to the child, I am of the opinion that the Minister had a secondary duty, to the applicants - to be fair to them, at least to the extent that it did not impair the Minister’s duty to the child. There are three reasons why. The first is that the applicants’ interests, to be identified in more detail shortly, were in jeopardy of being deeply affected by the Minister’s decision. Second, as will be shown, a duty of fairness to the applicants benefits the child. And third, the duty of fairness is a relative concept, dependant on a contextual assessment. It need not be an all or nothing proposition. Simply put, what the duty of fairness calls for in any given situation depends on the situation: The existence of a duty of fairness, however, does not determine what requirements will be applicable in a given set of circumstances… (Baker v. Canada, supra at para. 21) iii. To what extent was a duty of procedural fairness owed?