The Role of Adjudicators: Fairness, Equity, and the Courage to Decide

Adjudication is one of the quiet pillars of justice. In an era marked by heightened scrutiny, growing complexity and rising public expectation, the role of the adjudicator has never been more essential. Behind every ruling, order and written or oral reason lies immense weight and an act of profound public trust.

As an adjudicator myself, I know the responsibility we carry is both technical and deeply human. We listen, we weigh, we assess, we deliberate and we ultimately decide, always with fairness and integrity. Our work does not seek headlines, nor should it. Instead, it forms the foundation upon which confidence in our justice and regulatory systems depends. 

Fairness, equity and courage are not abstract ideals in the work we do as adjudicators; they are its daily practice. Our decisions shape lives, uphold public confidence and safeguard the integrity of the system itself. 

The Calling of an Adjudicator 

To understand the role of an adjudicator is to understand three essential qualities: fairness, humility and courage. Fairness, because the rule of law cannot survive without it. Humility, because no decision-maker holds a monopoly on truth. And courage, because doing what is right is often far more difficult than doing what is convenient and easy. 

Adjudicators sit at the intersection of law, humanity and judgment. They interpret evidence, apply standards and navigate the complexities of human behaviour, often in emotionally charged or ethically challenging circumstances. Their decisions can alter careers, reputations, and lives. Yet adjudicators continue to show up with quiet resolve, deliberating carefully and carrying out their duties with discipline and integrity. 

That takes courage, not the loud, heroic kind, but the steady kind that withstands pressure, uncertainty and scrutiny.

The Complexity of the Work 

Administrative and professional discipline hearings are often structured, formal and, at times tense. They require adherence to rules of evidence, procedural fairness and deliberative independence. It's demanding work that requires us to balance efficiency with empathy, procedural rigour with principle. 

But within that structure lies a deeper responsibility: to remember the people behind the process. The physician facing allegations. The lawyer defending their reputation. The refugee claimant seeking protection. The self- represented litigant trying simply to be heard. 

Each deserves not only a decision, but a fair one, delivered through a process that is transparent, comprehensible and humane.

That is why adjudicators train continuously, refine their writing and examine their own assumptions and biases. Fairness is not merely about applying the law correctly; it is about ensuring that those who appear before a tribunal can see themselves in the process and understand how and why a conclusion was reached. 

The Principles of Procedural Fairness 

The Canadian administrative law tradition is anchored in the principles of procedural fairness: the right to be heard, the right to an impartial decision-maker and the right to reasons that make sense. At the heart of adjudication lies these enduring principles. These are not abstract requirements; they are the essence of legitimacy. Without them, even a technically correct decision can feel unjust. 

Fairness, however, is not static. It evolves with our understanding of the people and communities we serve. That is why equity, inclusion and accessibility are not optional add-ons to the adjudicative process; they are central to it. Administrative law increasingly demands that adjudicators incorporate these principles into their understanding of fairness.

A conception of fairness that ignores systemic barriers is not fairness at all. 

Equity and Representation 

The pursuit of equity demands honesty. A growing body of research and experience reveals that racialized professionals and marginalized individuals often appear before regulatory bodies and tribunals at disproportionate rates. Structural inequities in access to mentorship, professional opportunity and representation contribute to these disparities. 

These are uncomfortable truths, but essential ones. 

Acknowledging systemic inequity does not compromise impartiality; it reinforces it. To uphold fairness, adjudicators must be willing to confront inequity directly and ask critical questions:

• Who is being heard? 
• Who is being believed? 
• Who has access to justice and who does not?
• Who sits in judgment?
• Whose perspectives are missing from the table? 

Equitable adjudication requires more than procedural rigour. It requires empathy, awareness and the humility to recognize that bias is not always overt; sometimes it is subtle, systemic or unconscious and can shape outcomes. Recognizing this reality is not weakness; it is an act of integrity. When adjudicators commit to learning, listening and improving, they strengthen the public trust and reinforce the legitimacy of our institutions. 

The Discipline of Decision-Making 

Decision-making is often solitary work. Adjudicators reflect, deliberate, write and, at times, wrestle with uncertainty. Yet, the measure of good adjudication is not perfection; it is the quality of the process. Transparent reasoning is the cornerstone of legitimacy. Writing decisions in plain, accessible language, and explaining how evidence led to conclusions, are the hallmarks of a fair process. 

When people understand why a decision was made, even if they disagree with the outcome, they are more likely to trust the system that produced it. That trust is the lifeblood of justice. The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Vavilov affirms that reasoned decision-making is the essence of administrative justice. A decision that is intelligible, justified and responsive to the evidence not only meets legal standards, it reinforces public confidence. 

The Human Element & The Future of Adjudication 

Behind every case file is a person, often anxious, sometimes angry, always hoping to be heard. 

The best adjudicators never lose sight of that. They create space for truth to emerge, even when it is uncomfortable and difficult. They see beyond the documentary record to the human story beneath it. Empathy does not undermine impartiality; it strengthens it. It ensures that justice is not only done but experienced as fair.

As technology reshapes how we do our work and public scrutiny intensifies, the challenge for adjudicators is to keep the human element at the centre. Virtual hearings, digital evidence and evolving legal standards offer opportunities for efficiency, but efficiency must never override fairness or compassion.

Legitimacy does not come from authority alone; it comes from integrity. The future of administrative law in Canada will depend on adjudicators who lead with empathy, transparency and courage, those who ensure that modernization enhances, rather than diminishes, the human experience of justice. 

A Lesson in Courage and Compassion 

Early in my legal career, I learned a lesson that has stayed with me.  As a young prosecutor in Baltimore, I prepared meticulously for my first trial in juvenile court. My arguments were sharp, my cross-examination tight. I was certain I would win.

I lost and I was devastated. 

A mentor approached me after the trial and asked: “What kind of lawyer do you want to be? The kind who only cares about the win, or the kind who carries out their duties with compassion, empathy, integrity and courage?” 

That question reframed my understanding of justice. I realized that compassion and integrity are not at odds with strength; they are its foundation. I carry that sentiment with me still.

Every decision an adjudicator makes is an act of public trust. Each time they listen with empathy, write with clarity and decide with fairness, they reinforce that trust. Justice endures not through grand reforms or sweeping gestures, but through the steady, consistent courage of those who believe that fairness matters, that equity matters, that integrity matters. 

That is the enduring promise of adjudication and the quiet strength that sustains the rule of law in Canada.