Gill v. Canada (Attorney General), 2006 FC 1106

• Judge: O'Keefe, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 21, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2006 FC 1106;(2006), 298 F.T.R. 289 (FC)

Gill v. Can. (A.G.) (2006), 298 F.T.R. 289 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] F.T.R. TBEd. SE.040

Constable H.S. Gill, Regimental No. 40635 (applicant) v. The Attorney-General of Canada (respondent)

(T-1252-04; 2006 FC 1106)

Indexed As: Gill v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

O'Keefe, J.

September 18, 2006.

Summary:

A Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) adjudication board imposed sanctions on a constable for contraventions of the RCMP Code of Conduct. The RCMP Commissioner upheld the decision. The constable applied for judicial review of the Commissioner's decision.

The Federal Court allowed the application, set aside the Commissioner's decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration.

Police - Topic 4161

Internal organization - Discipline - Appeals and judicial review - General (incl. standard of review) - A Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) adjudication board imposed sanctions (incl. dismissal) on a constable for contraventions of the RCMP Code of Conduct (i.e., using excessive force with members of the public) - The RCMP Commissioner upheld the decision of the board - The constable applied for judicial review of the Commissioner's decision - The Federal Court discussed the appropriate standard of review for the various types of determinations which needed to be made in this case - The court allowed the application, set aside the Commissioner's decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration - The court held that with respect to two of the allegations against the constable, he did not have adequate notice of the case he had to meet (i.e., the board strayed outside the particulars in reaching its conclusions) and therefore the Commissioner erred in upholding the board's decision - With regard to a third allegation, the decision reached by the Commissioner was patently unreasonable and had to be set aside.

Police - Topic 4170

Internal organization - Discipline - Appeals and judicial review - Grounds - Denial of natural justice - [See Police - Topic 4161 ].

Cases Noticed:

Thériault v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al. (2004), 258 F.T.R. 271; 2004 FC 1506, refd to. [para. 35].

Stenhouse v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 248 F.T.R. 248; 2004 FC 375, refd to. [para. 35].

Golomb v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Ont.) (1976), 12 O.R.(2d) 73; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 25 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 38].

Gordon v. Canada (Solicitor General) et al. (2003), 241 F.T.R. 281; 2003 FC 1250, refd to. [para. 45].

Toronto (City) 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; 2003 SCC 63, refd to. [para. 46].

Millard v. Canada (Attorney General) (2000), 253 N.R. 187 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Bates v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police, [1985] F.C.J. No. 811 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 49].

White v. Dartmouth (City) et al. (1991), 106 N.S.R.(2d) 45; 288 A.P.R. 45 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 49].

Rendell v. Canada (Attorney General) (2001), 208 F.T.R. 1; 2001 FCT 710, refd to. [para. 58].

Counsel:

S.R. Chamberlain, Q.C., for the applicant;

Kevin Woodall and Elvin Jensen, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Chamberlain & Doyle, Richmond, British Columbia, for the applicant;

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

This application was heard on March 21, 2006, at Vancouver, British Columbia, before O'Keefe, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment at Toronto, Ontario, on September 18, 2006.