Motion by Associate Chief Justice Douglas for stay of Canadian Judicial Council’s evidentiary decision pending judicial review

27. January 2015 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Canadian Judicial Council – Judges – Professional governance and discipline – Investigations – Public interest – Judicial review – Stay of proceedings – interlocutory – Disclosure of records – Evidence – admissibility Douglas v. Canada (Attorney General), [2014] F.C.J. No. 1149, 2014 FC 1115, Federal Court, November ...

The applicant is a staff sergeant of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). After a few attempts to advance his career, he received a letter from the RCMP Commissioner saying that he would not be appointed to any commissioned rank and that he should consider leaving the Force. The staff sergeant applied for judicial review, asking that the Commissioner be directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with the reasons of the Court. The application was allowed, and the Court determined that the Commissioner’s letter was subject to judicial review, as the power to recommend candidates for appointment or promotion was public in nature, and the Commissioner was exercising a public power that could not be shielded from review. Although the Commissioner’s decision attracted only a minimal degree of procedural fairness, even this was not met as there was nothing in the record that suggested the applicant had notice or an opportunity to respond. The Commissioner’s decision was unreasonable. He circumvented the disciplinary process and it was not open for the Commissioner to revisit a former incident and substitute his own judgment for that of statutory adjudication board. The Commissioner’s decision was set aside with a direction requiring the Commissioner to do as much as possible to enable the applicant’s promotion and not withhold consent once a position was available.

23. December 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Police Commission – Royal Canadian Mounted Police – Employment law – Appointment – Labour law – Disciplinary grievances – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Privilege and immunity – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Remedies – Alternative remedies Boogaard v. Canada (Attorney General), ...

Enbridge Pipelines (“Enbridge”) applied to the National Energy (the “Board”) for approval of its pipeline expansion project. The Board granted approval on conditions, but the applicants sought judicial review of three interlocutory decisions made by the Board.

23. December 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – National Energy Board – Natural resources – Oil and gas – Environmental matters – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Freedom of expression – Participatory rights – Judicial review – Application to participate in hearing – Standing – Compliance with legislation Forest Ethics Advocacy Assn. v. Canada ...

Judicial Review of Parole Board of Canada Appeal Division decision denying request to remove international travel restriction

28. October 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – National Parole Board hearings – Discretionary conditions – Evidence – Reasonableness – Policies – Judicial review application – Compliance with legislation Latimer v. Canada (Attorney General), [2014] F.C.J. No. 898, 2014 FC 886, Federal Court, September 16, 2014, Manson J. The applicant applied for permanent relief from the international travel ...

The plaintiff, a mother of two children, was awarded damages for lost wages and pain and suffering, as well as $20,000 in special compensation by the Human Rights Tribunal after the CNR “recklessly” refused to give her any useful information about how long she would be staying or about housing arrangements following its temporary transfer of her to another community to cover a conductor shortage. She made out a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of family status since she demonstrated that (i) she was responsible for the care of two children, (ii) a temporary move would disrupt her children’s care, and (iii) CNR did not give her any information about how long she would be staying in Vancouver or about housing arrangements, despite her requests. CNR failed to accommodate her and her need to arrange for childcare to the point of undue hardship by refusing to provide her with the information required to make the arrangements.

24. June 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Duty to accommodate Canadian National Railway Co. v. Seeley, [2014] F.C.J. No. 452, 2014 FCA 111, Federal Court of Appeal, May 2, 2014, Pelletier, Mainville and Scott JJ.A. In 2010, the Human Rights Tribunal found that CNR ...

The Court dismissed the application of judicial review of an employee of the Canada Border Services Agency (the “CBSA”), of a decision of an appeals officer of the occupational Health and Safety Tribunal Canada (the “Tribunal”), who concluded that there was no “danger” within the meaning of the Canada Labour Code, RSC 1985, c.L-2 (the “Code”) justifying the employee’s refusal to work. This was the second application for judicial review resulting from the refusal to work, with the first application being allowed, with the matter referred back to the appeals officer to “complete her analysis in accordance with the reasons of the judgment”. The Court found no breach of procedural fairness in the appeals officer declining the request to hold a hearing following the first judgment of the Court and before making her second decision. The Court also found the decision reasonable, finding that the appeals officer’s decision fell within the range of acceptable and rational solutions. The decision had the qualities of reasonableness, in that the decision-making process was justifiable, transparent and intelligible.

24. December 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Occupational Health and Safety Tribunal – Labour law – Working conditions – Judicial review – Appeals – Failure to provide reasons – Procedural requirements and fairness Laroche v. Canada (Attorney General), [2013] F.C.J. No. 859, 2013 FC 797, Federal Court , July 18, 2013, Roy J. This was ...

Police officer’s appeal of dismissal of his application for judicial review was dismissed on the ground that a jurisdictional error, in and of itself, doesn’t constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying judicial intervention regarding an interlocutory decision

22. October 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Royal Canadian Mounted Police – Police – Professional misconduct / conduct unbecoming – Disciplinary proceedings – Notice – Judicial review application – Premature – Jurisdiction – Remedies – Alternative remedies Black v. Canada (Attorney General), [2013] F.C.J. No. 1001, 2013 FCA 201, Federal Court of Appeal, September ...

Applicant unsucessfully applied for a judicial review of two reports of findings of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. The Court determined that the applicant had a more appropriate remedy by applying to the Federal Court for a compliance order or award of damages.

26. March 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Privacy commissioner – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure of records – Production of records – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of court – Remedies – Alternative remedies Kniss v. Canada (Privacy Commissioner), [2013] F.C.J. No. 56, 2013 FC 31, Federal Court, January 15, 2013, ...

The Court held that a rehearing and decision rendered by a final authority in a Canadian Forces grievance did not rectify the error committed by the initial authority and therefore the grievor was denied procedural fairness. The applicant was severely injured while driving to activate her Family Care Plan which she had been requested to prepare by the Canadian Forces. She applied for disability benefits which were denied by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The applicant filed a grievance which was referred to the Director General, Personnel and Family Support in error. The applicant then chose to have the matter referred to the final authority which upheld the dismissal. The Court held that the decision was not fully informed, and that the board failed to consider all the appropriate circumstances and precedents in reaching its decision.

25. September 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Military Committees – Grievances – Government – Pensions – Eligibility – Employment law – Government employees – Benefits – Policies – In and out of the course of employment – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice Fawcett v. Canada (Attorney ...

The Federal Court of Appeal held that there was nothing in the Canadian Wheat Board Act (“CWBA”) which suggested that the federal government fettered the authority of the Minister of Agriculture to introduce and recommend legislation to repeal the substantive provisions of the CWBA or the Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act itself

28. August 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Ministerial – Canadian Wheat Board – Natural resources – Agriculture – Government – Legislation – Judicial review –  Compliance with legislation –  Statutory interpretation – Standard of review – Correctness – Remedies – Declaratory relief  Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board v. Canada (Attorney General), [2012] F.C.J. ...