Policy Decisions: No proceeding based on negligence in connection with the exercise or non-exercise of a discretionary power or the performance or non-performance of a discretionary function, if the action or inaction results from a policy decision of a municipality or local board made in a good
faith exercise of the discretion, shall be commenced against,
Not exact matches
[48] The court did confirm, however, an HPRB
exercise of discretion will be patently unreasonable if it is (a)
exercised arbitrarily or in bad
faith, (b)
exercised for an improper purpose, (c) based entirely or predominantly on irrelevant factors, or (d) fails to take statutory requirements into account.
As an aside, on granting permission to appeal (as an application for permission to appeal had to be issued as the Judge had rejected the oral application for permission to appeal at the original hearing), the Court
of Appeal had recognised that it was unusual for an
exercise of judicial
discretion to be appealed but stated that the decision
of His Honour Judge Purle QC was highly speculative as to «border on the Micawberism» (which those
of you versed in classic literature will recognise as a reference to a character in the Charles Dickens novel, David Copperfield, who continually holds blind
faith that «something will turn up»).
Court held that where a duly constituted community association board, upon reasonable investigation and in good
faith,
exercises discretion within the scope
of its authority under the relevant statutes, courts should defer to the board's authority and presumed expertise.
The court confirmed that s. 58
of the Administrative Tribunals Act applied to the HPRB, such that a court would not interfere with findings
of fact or law, or an
exercise of discretion by the HPRB, unless patently unreasonable, e.g., where
discretion is
exercised arbitrarily or in bad
faith, for an improper purpose, based on entirely or predominantly irrelevant factors, or fails to account for statutory requirements.