Canada (Attorney General) v. Canada (Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 440 (1997)

Canada (Attorney General) v. Canada (Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 440

The Canadian Red Cross Society, George Weber,

Dr. Roger A. Perrault, Dr. Martin G. Davey,

Dr. Terry Stout, Dr. Joseph Ernest Côme Rousseau,

Dr. Noel Adams Buskard, Dr. Raymond M. Guevin,

Dr. John Sinclair MacKay, Dr. Max Gorelick,

Dr. Roslyn Herst and Dr. Andrew Kaegi and Bayer Inc.

and Baxter Corporation Appellants v.

The Honourable Horace Krever,

Commissioner of the Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada Respondent and

The Canadian Hemophilia Society,

the Canadian Aids Society, Canadian

Hemophiliacs Infected with HIV,

T-COR, the HIV-T Group (Blood Transfused),

the Toronto and Central Ontario Regional

Hemophilia Society, the Hepatitis C Survivors' Society,

the Hepatitis C Group of Transfusion Recipients

& Hemophiliacs and Janet Conners

(Infected Spouses & Children) Association Interveners

Indexed as: Canada (Attorney General) v. Canada (Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System)

File No.: 25810.

1997: June 25; 1997: September 26.

Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

on appeal from the federal court of appeal

Administrative law -- Judicial review -- Public inquiry -- Jurisdiction -- Notices of possible findings of misconduct -- Whether Commission had jurisdiction to make findings of misconduct -- Inquiries Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-11, ss. 2, 6, 12, 13.

Public inquiries -- Jurisdiction -- Notices of potential findings of misconduct -- Whether notices unfair.

The Commission of Inquiry appointed to examine the blood system after thousands contracted HIV and Hepatitis C from blood and blood products held exhaustive hearings governed by rules of procedure agreed to by all parties. Twenty-five interested parties were granted standing. The Baxter Corporation did not seek standing but subsequently participated in the proceedings by supplying relevant documents and providing witnesses. The Commission, on the final day of scheduled hearings, sent out confidential notices that the Commission might reach certain conclusions based on the evidence before it, that these conclusions might amount to misconduct with the meaning of s. 13 of the Inquiries Act (setting out jurisdiction to make findings of misconduct), and that the recipients had the right to respond as to whether the Commissioner ought to reach these conclusions. A number of the recipients of notices brought applications for judicial review in the Federal Court, Trial Division. That court declared that no findings of misconduct could be made against 47 of the applicants for judicial review, but otherwise dismissed the applications. Many recipients whose notices were not quashed appealed. The Federal Court of Appeal quashed one notice but dismissed the remaining appeals. At issue here are: (1) whether the Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by the nature and extent of the allegations of misconduct set out in the notices; (2) if the Commissioner originally had such jurisdiction, did he lose it by failing to provide adequate procedural protections or by the timing of the release of the notices; (3) whether Commission counsel should be prohibited from taking part in the drafting of the final report because of their receipt of confidential information not disclosed to the Commissioner or the other parties; and, (4) whether the appellant Baxter Corporation should be treated differently from the other appellants.

Held: The appeal should be dismissed.

Several basic principles are applicable to inquiries. A commission of inquiry is not a court or tribunal and has no authority to determine legal liability; it does not necessarily follow the same laws of evidence or procedure that a court or tribunal would observe. A commissioner accordingly should endeavour to avoid setting out conclusions that are couched in the specific language of criminal culpability or civil liability for the public perception may be that specific findings of criminal or civil liability have been made. A commissioner has the power to make all relevant findings of fact necessary to explain or support ...

If you are already a vLex customer, Access Here