Black v. Canada (Attorney General), (2012) 421 F.T.R. 29 (FC)

• Judge: Russell, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 16, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2012), 421 F.T.R. 29 (FC);2012 FC 1306

Black v. Can. (A.G.) (2012), 421 F.T.R. 29 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2012] F.T.R. TBEd. NO.038

Steve Black (applicant) v. The Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-915-12; 2012 FC 1306; 2012 CF 1306)

Indexed As: Black v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

Russell, J.

November 8, 2012.

Summary:

An adjudication board constituted under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act determined, on a preliminary motion, that the applicant was served with Notice of Disciplinary Hearing "forthwith" as required by s. 43(4) of the Act. The applicant applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 3302

Judicial review - General - Bars - Alternate remedy - A Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) member, Black, was served with a Notice of Disciplinary Hearing 10.5 months after formal disciplinary proceedings were initiated under the RCMP Act - An adjudication board determined, on a preliminary motion, that Black was served with the notice "forthwith" (RCMP Act, s. 43(4)) - Black applied for judicial review - The Federal Court dismissed the application - Black was unable to establish that he did not have an adequate alternative remedy under the Act by way of appeal to the Commissioner, or that any special circumstance existed in this case to stray from the general principle that the administrative process under the Act should be allowed to run its course before he sought judicial review.

Administrative Law - Topic 3302

Judicial review - General - Bars - Alternate remedy - The Federal Court stated that it was clear from the general guidance provided in CB Powell v. Canada Border Services Agency (FCA 2010), that "... parties can only proceed to the Court by way of judicial review after all adequate remedial recourses in the administrative process have been exhausted, and that the presence of a jurisdictional issue by itself is not an exceptional circumstance that allows a party to launch a judicial review application before the administrative process has been completed" - See paragraph 57.

Administrative Law - Topic 3303

Judicial review - General - Bars - Appeal or review available - [See both Administrative Law - Topic 3302 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 7096

Judicial review - Bars - Discretionary bars - Existence of convenient or adequate alternative remedy - [See both Administrative Law - Topic 3302 ].

Police - Topic 4162

Internal organization - Discipline - Appeals and judicial review - When available - [See first Administrative Law - Topic 3302 ].

Cases Noticed:

Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police et al., [1981] 1 S.C.R. 92; 117 D.L.R.(3d) 750; 37 N.R. 395, refd to. [para. 10].

Wilder et al. v. Ontario Securities Commission (2001), 142 O.A.C. 300; 197 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 24 O.S.C.B. 1953 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Thériault v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al. (2006), 352 N.R. 300; 2006 FCA 61, refd to. [para. 13].

Air Canada v. Lorenz et al., [2000] 1 F.C. 494; 175 F.T.R. 211 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 24].

Cannon v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Assistant Commissioner), [1998] 2 F.C. 104; 139 F.T.R. 91 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 24].

Secord et al. v. Board of Police Commissioners of Saint John (2006), 300 N.B.R.(2d) 202; 782 A.P.R. 202; 2006 NBQB 65, refd to. [para. 25].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3; 177 N.R. 325, refd to. [para. 27].

Violette v. New Brunswick Dental Society (2004), 267 N.B.R.(2d) 205; 702 A.P.R. 205; 2004 NBCA 1, refd to. [para. 29].

Holdenried v. Canada (Attorney General) (2012), 413 F.T.R. 49; 2012 FC 707, refd to. [para. 36].

Powell (C.B.) Ltd. v. Canada Border Services Agency (President) et al. (2010), 400 N.R. 367; 2010 FCA 61, refd to. [para. 37].

Shephard v. Fortin et al. (2003), 242 F.T.R. 42; 2003 FC 1296, refd to. [para. 39].

Shephard v. Canada (R.C.M.P.) - see Shephard v. Fortin.

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2009), 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 43].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 44].

MacEachern v. Rennie et al., [2009] B.C.T.C. Uned. 955; 2009 BCSC 955, refd to. [para. 45].

Adams v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Commissioner) et al. (1994), 174 N.R. 314 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Petch v. Gurney (Inspector of Taxes), [1994] 3 All E.R. 731; [1994] 27 L.S. Gaz. R. 37; [1994] E.W.C.A. Civ. 9; [1994] S.T.C. 689; 66 T.C. 743 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

Kellogg Brown and Root Canada v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) (2007), 434 A.R. 311; 2007 ABQB 499, refd to. [para. 48].

Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.) (2000), 260 N.R. 1; 141 B.C.A.C. 161; 231 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 53].

Statutes Noticed:

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-10, sect. 43(4) [para. 9]; sect. 45.14(1) [para. 61]; sect. 45.14(3) [para. 63].

Counsel:

Jennifer Koschinsky, for the applicant;

Barry Benkendorf, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Heenan Blaikie LLP, Calgary, Alberta, for the applicant;

Myles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard in Calgary, Alberta, on October 16, 2012, before Russell, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision in Ottawa, Ontario, on November 8, 2012.