Gagliano v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (2005) 265 F.T.R. 218 (FC)

• Judge: Tremblay-Lamer, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 12, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2005), 265 F.T.R. 218 (FC);2005 FC 576

Gagliano v. Can. (A.G.) (2005), 265 F.T.R. 218 (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: [2005] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.008

L'honorable Alfonso Gagliano (demandeur) v. Le Procureur général du Canada, La Chambre des Communes et M. Charles Guité (défendeurs) et La Commission d'Enquete sur le Programme de Commandites et Les Activités Publicitaires (intervenante)

(T-2250-04; 2005 FC 576; 2005 CF 576)

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

Federal Court

Tremblay-Lamer, J.

April 27, 2005.

Summary:

At issue on this judicial review application was whether Parliamentary privilege precluded a person from being cross-examined on his testimony before a commission of inquiry, concerning prior allegedly inconsistent statements made before a Parliamentary committee.

The Federal Court held that the privilege of Parliamentary immunity applied.

Administrative Law - Topic 351

The hearing and decision - Nature or extent of hearing - Opportunity to cross-examine - At issue on a judicial review application was the ability of counsel to cross-examine a witness in proceedings of a commission of public inquiry (the Gomery Commission) on the basis of the witness's past testimony before the Public Accounts Committee, a committee comprised of Members of Parliament - The Gomery Commission ruled that the privilege of Parliamentary immunity applied to the testimony before the Parliamentary committee, thus precluding counsel from using that testimony in cross-examination - The applicant argued that Parliamentary privilege did not preclude him from cross-examining the witness during his testimony before the Gomery Commission concerning his prior allegedly inconsistent statements before the Parliamentary committee because the Commission had no power to convict or even recommend prosecution or civil proceedings (i.e., there was no legal consequence) - The Federal Court held that Parliamentary privilege applied because the power to preclude cross-examination was necessary to the functioning of Parliament - Further, there was no procedural unfairness to the applicant in refusing to permit the cross-examination in this one respect.

Administrative Law - Topic 2491

Natural justice - Procedure - At hearing - Cross-examination - [See Administrative Law - Topic 351 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2611

Natural justice - Evidence and proof - Witnesses - Cross-examination of - [See Administrative Law - Topic 351 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 7912

Public inquiries - General - Procedural fairness - [See Administrative Law - Topic 351 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 7912

Public inquiries - General - Procedural fairness - The Federal Court addressed the principles of procedural fairness applicable to a commission of inquiry - See paragraph 99 to 105.

Administrative Law - Topic 7985

Public inquiries - Judicial review - Scope of review - During the proceedings of a commission of public inquiry the following issue arose: Does Parliamentary privilege preclude a person from being cross-examined on his testimony before a commission of inquiry, concerning prior allegedly inconsistent statements made before a Parliamentary committee - The Commissioner found that it did - The applicant sought judicial review - The Federal Court held that the standard of review was correctness - See paragraphs 40 to 44.

Courts - Topic 155

Reception of English law - Canada - [See second Crown - Topic 2207 ].

Crown - Topic 2205

Crown privilege or prerogative - General - When available - [See Administrative Law - Topic 351 ].

Crown - Topic 2205

Crown privilege or prerogative - General - When available - The Federal Court held that "the power to preclude cross-examination of witnesses using evidence obtained in previous proceedings of Parliament falls within the scope of Parliamentary privilege because it is necessary to the functioning of Parliament. It is necessary at three levels: to encourage witnesses to speak openly before the Parliamentary committee, to allow the committee to exercise its investigative function and, in a more secondary way, to avoid contradictory findings of fact" - See paragraphs 72 to 97.

Crown - Topic 2207

Crown privilege or prerogative - General - Parliamentary privilege - [See second Crown - Topic 2205 ].

Crown - Topic 2207

Crown privilege or prerogative - General - Parliamentary privilege - Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, 1689 codified freedom of speech in the United Kingdom - The Federal Court stated that "Historically, successive cases in which the courts in the United Kingdom in the 16th and 17th centuries, at the behest of the Monarch, purported to usurp power and control over Parliamentary affairs led to the enactment of the Bill of Rights, 1689, ... expressly exempting specific areas of Parliamentary activity from judicial scrutiny. ... Although article 9 of the Bill of Rights has not been incorporated directly into Canadian constitutional law, the broad principles that flow from it apply and contribute to our understanding of the respective roles of courts and legislative bodies in Canada." - See paragraph 3.

Crown - Topic 2207

Crown privilege or prerogative - General - Parliamentary privilege - The Federal Court discussed the origins and scope of Parliamentary privilege in Canada - The court held that the test of necessity applied.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Murphy (1986), 64 A.L.R. 498 (N.S.W.S.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

Prebble v. Television New Zealand Ltd., [1995] 1 A.C. 321; 170 N.R. 383 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

Hamilton v. Al Fayed, [2000] 2 All E.R. 224; 255 N.R. 354 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 29].

New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. and Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Speaker of the House of Assembly (N.S.) et al., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 319; 146 N.R. 161; 118 N.S.R.(2d) 181; 327 A.P.R. 181, appld. [para. 31].

Laurance v. Katter (1996), 141 A.L.R. 447 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 41].

Toronto (City) et al. v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291, refd to. [para. 41].

Stockdale v. Hansard (1839), 9 Ad. & El. 1112 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 46].

Kielley v. Carson (1842), 4 Moo. P.C.C. 63; 13 E.R. 225 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 46].

Bradlaugh v. Gassett (1884), 12 Q.B.D. 271, refd to. [para. 55].

Goffin v. Donnelly (1881), 6 Q.B.D. 307, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Wainscot (1899), 1 W.A.L.R. 77 (State S.C.), refd to. [para. 57].

Jennings v. Buchanan, [2002] 3 N.Z.L.R. 145 (C.A.), affd. [2004] N.R. Uned. 160; [2004] UKPC 36, refd to. [para. 60].

Dixon v. Canada (Governor-in-Council) - see Dixon v. Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces in Somalia et al.

Dixon v. Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces in Somalia et al., [1997] 3 F.C. 169; 218 N.R. 139 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Prince Edward Island (Legislative Assembly) - see Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. MacPhee et al.

Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. MacPhee et al. (2003), 221 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 164; 661 A.P.R. 164 (P.E.I.T.D.), refd to. [para. 82].

Pepper v. Hart, [1993] A.C. 593 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 91].

Boyle v. Canada - see Boyle v. Letourneau, J. et al.

Boyle v. Letourneau, J. et al. (1997), 131 F.T.R. 135 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 100].

Beno v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] 3 F.C. 499; 216 F.T.R. 45 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 100].

R. v. Kuldip, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 618; 114 N.R. 284; 43 O.A.C. 340, dist. [para. 101].

Krever Commission - see Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada et al.

Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 440; 216 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 104].

Statutes Noticed:

Bill of Rights, 1689 (U.K.), 1 Wm. & M., c. 2, sect. 9 [para. 51].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 18 [para. 47].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Maingot, J.P. Joseph, Le privilège parlementaire au Canada (2nd Ed. 1997), p. 16 [para. 45].

May, Thomas Erskine, Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament (19th Ed. 1976), p. 201 [para. 90, footnote 3].

Ontario, Law Reform Commission, Report on Witnesses before Legislative Committees (1981), pp. 100 [para. 90, footnote 3]; 106 [para. 88, footnote 2]; 113 [para. 77, footnote 1].

Counsel:

Magali Fournier, for the plaintiff;

André Lespérance and Warren Newman, for the defendant, Attorney General of Canada;

Chantal Masse, Dara Lithwick and Sarah Woods, for the defendant, House of Commons;

Richard Auger, for the defendant, Charles Guité;

Raynold Langlois and Marie-Geneviève Masson, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

Fournier Associés, Montreal, Quebec, for the plaintiff;

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendant, Attorney General of Canada;

McCarthy Tétrault, Montreal, Quebec, for the defendant, House of Commons;

Edelson & Associés, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendant, Charles Guité;

Langlois, Kronström Desjardins, Montreal, Quebec, for the intervenor.

This application was heard at Montreal, Quebec, on April 12, 2005, by Tremblay-Lamer, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on April 27, 2005.