Cousineau-Mahoney v. Public Sector Integrity Commissioner et al., (2013) 442 F.T.R. 131 (FC)

• Judge: Annis, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 09, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2013), 442 F.T.R. 131 (FC);2013 FC 1128

Cousineau-Mahoney v. Integrity Commr. (2013), 442 F.T.R. 131 (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. NO.022

Chantal Cousineau-Mahoney (applicant) v. The Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, Josée Lépine, Lucille Lemire and Guy McKenzie (respondents)

(T-1210-13; 2013 FC 1128; 2013 CF 1128)

Indexed As: Cousineau-Mahoney v. Public Sector Integrity Commissioner et al.

Federal Court

Annis, J.

November 7, 2013.

Summary:

The applicant was the former vice president and chief financial officer of the Canadian School of Public Services (the School). She was the subject of an investigation respecting allegations of misconduct. Confidential information identifying her as the subject of an investigation and describing the allegations against her was leaked within the School. She filed a complaint. Six new allegations were made against the applicant. The Public Sector Integrity Commission continued its investigation based on the new allegations. The Commission advised the applicant that it had dismissed four of the new allegations and that the other two were still under review. The applicant was also informed of the substance of the disclosure against her in accordance with s. 27(2) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. On the same day, the applicant applied for judicial review, seeking to quash the investigation or, alternatively, requiring the Commissioner to provide extensive disclosure. The Attorney General of Canada moved on behalf of the named respondents (which included the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and the people who were claimed to have put forth the allegations of misconduct), seeking to strike the notice of application for judicial review or, alternatively to have the named respondents struck and to have the Attorney General substituted as the appropriate responding party.

The Federal Court struck the notice of application and dismissed the application for judicial review.

Administrative Law - Topic 3302

Judicial review - General - Bars - Alternate remedy - The applicant was the former vice president and chief financial officer of the Canadian School of Public Services (the School) - Confidential information identifying her as the subject of an investigation for misconduct and describing the allegations against her was leaked within the School - She filed a complaint - The Public Sector Integrity Commission advised the applicant that it had dismissed four allegations and that two were still under review - She was also informed of the substance of the disclosure against her (Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, s. 27(2)) - The applicant sought judicial review, seeking to quash the investigation or, alternatively, requiring the Commissioner to provide extensive disclosure - The Federal Court allowed the Attorney General's motion to strike the application - Although this was an exceptional remedy, the rule of non-interference with ongoing administrative processes was vigorously enforced, being permitted only in the narrowest of exceptional circumstances measured against an exceptionally high threshold - The issues raised by the applicant could be raised either when she was provided with an opportunity to respond to any negative conclusions of the Commissioner (s. 27(3)) or in a judicial review proceeding taken after the report was issued - Damage to her reputation did not constitute exceptional circumstances - Her request was also premature as the Commission might reject the complaints in their entirety - Also, the disclosure application was contrary to the Commissioner's extensive statutory powers and discretion respecting the conduct of an investigation and disclosure.

Administrative Law - Topic 3303

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

Administrative Law - Topic 3348

Judicial review - General - Practice - Time for application - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3302 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 7096

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

Labour Law - Topic 9096

Public service labour relations - Public service integrity - Judicial review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3302 ].

Cases Noticed:

Powell (C.B.) Ltd. v. Canada Border Services Agency (President) et al. (2010), 400 N.R. 367; 2010 FCA 61, refd to. [para. 21].

Counsel:

Graham S. Ragan, for the applicant;

Y. Monica Song, for the respondent, Public Sector Integrity Commissioner;

Diane Pelletier and Stéphanie Lauriault, for the respondent, Attorney General of Canada on behalf of José Lépine, Lucille Lemire and Guy McKenzie.

Solicitors of Record:

Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

Dentons LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, Public Sector Integrity Commissioner;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondents, Attorney General of Canada on behalf of Josée Lépine, Lucille Lemire and Guy McKenzie.

This motion was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 9, 2013, by Annis, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on November 7, 2013.