Chopra et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2013) 434 F.T.R. 123 (FC)

• Judge: Scott, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 23, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2013), 434 F.T.R. 123 (FC);2013 FC 644

Chopra v. Can. (A.G.) (2013), 434 F.T.R. 123 (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: [2013] F.T.R. TBEd. JN.047

Shiv Chopra and Margaret Haydon (applicants) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-452-12; 2013 FC 644; 2013 CF 644)

Indexed As: Chopra et al. v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

Scott, J.

June 12, 2013.

Summary:

The applicants filed complaints about Health Canada's approval of new drug submissions without the required submission of human safety data. The Public Service Integrity Officer (PSIO) conducted an investigation and concluded that the complaints were unfounded. The applicants applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported at 273 F.T.R. 200, allowed the application and remitted the matter to the PSIO for reconsideration. The PSIO appointed a new investigator to resume the complaint. The new investigation would be limited to reconsidering the issues as highlighted in the application judge's decision. In 2007, the PSIO was replaced by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (PSIC). Ouimet was the first PSIC appointed under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. In October 2009, Ouimet decided to cease the investigation into the complaints under s. 24(1)(e) of the Act. In December 2010, Dion was appointed new PSIC. He decided that an independent review of all disclosure of wrongdoing and reprisal complaint files closed between April 15, 2007 and December 19, 2010 be completed in order to determine whether any merited being reopened. Dion decided that the applicants' complaint should not be reopened. The applicants applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Labour Law - Topic 9094

Public service labour relations - Public service integrity - Duties of officer - The applicants filed complaints about Health Canada's approval of new drug submissions without the required submission of human safety data - The Public Service Integrity Officer (PSIO) conducted an investigation and concluded that the complaints were unfounded - The application judge remitted the matter to the PSIO for reconsideration - The PSIO appointed a new investigator to resume the complaint - The new investigation would be limited to reconsidering the issues as highlighted in the application judge's decision - In 2007, the PSIO was replaced by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (PSIC) - Ouimet was the first PSIC appointed under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act - In October 2009, Ouimet decided to cease the investigation under s. 24(1)(e) of the Act - In December 2010, Dion was appointed new PSIC - He decided that an independent review of all disclosure of wrongdoing and reprisal complaint files closed between April 15, 2007 and December 19, 2010 be completed in order to determine whether any merited being reopened - Dion decided that the applicants' complaint should not be reopened - The applicants applied for judicial review - The Federal Court dismissed the application - In the absence of a legislative provision prescribing otherwise, a non-adjudicative body's decision to reopen a case was discretionary - Discretionary decisions attracted the standard of reasonableness - Dion's decision was reasonable since he took into consideration all the elements before him and found that Ouimet's determination was properly based on s. 24(1)(e) - The evidence on file could reasonably bring about such a conclusion.

Labour Law - Topic 9096

Public service labour relations - Public service integrity - Judicial review (incl. standard of review) - [See Labour Law - Topic 9094 ].

Cases Noticed:

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654; 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 28].

Shire v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 39; 2012 FC 97, refd to. [para. 28].

Detorakis v. Canada (Attorney General) (2010), 358 F.T.R. 266; 2010 FC 39, refd to. [para. 29].

Kurukkal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2010), 406 N.R. 313; 2010 FCA 230, refd to. [para. 30].

Noor v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2011), 386 F.T.R. 80; 2011 FC 308, refd to. [para. 30].

Trivedi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 277; 2010 FC 422, refd to. [para. 30].

Nouranidoust v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 172 F.T.R. 115 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 30].

Zutter v. Council of Human Rights (B.C.) et al. (1995), 57 B.C.A.C. 241; 94 W.A.C. 241; 1995 CanLII 1234 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 30].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708; 424 N.R. 220; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 59].

Chandler v. Alberta Association of Architects, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 848; 99 N.R. 277; 101 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 63].

Nazifpour v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2007), 360 N.R. 199; 2007 FCA 35, refd to. [para. 64].

Kurukkal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2010), 347 F.T.R. 60; 2009 FC 695, refd to. [para. 66].

Lavigne v. Commissioner of Official Languages (Can.) et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 773; 289 N.R. 282; 2002 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 74].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Viola et al., [1991] 1 F.C. 373; 123 N.R. 83 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

Chrétien v. Canada, [2002] F.T.R. Uned. 345; 2002 FCT 506, refd to. [para. 77].

Counsel:

David Yazbeck, for the applicants;

Catherine Lawrence, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP/s.r.l., Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicants;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on April 23, 2013, by Scott, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment on June 12, 2013.