Harris v. Canada (Attorney General), (2013) 433 F.T.R. 181 (FC)

• Judge: Gagné, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 29, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2013), 433 F.T.R. 181 (FC);2013 FC 571

Harris v. Can. (A.G.) (2013), 433 F.T.R. 181 (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. MY.036

Sub-Lieutenant J.H. Harris (applicant) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-1031-12; 2013 FC 571; 2013 CF 571)

Indexed As: Harris v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

Gagné, J.

May 29, 2013.

Summary:

Harris, a reserve officer with the Canadian Forces (CF) and a former cadet, was pursuing graduate studies. As part of her thesis research, she wanted to survey Cadets. The CF's Social Science Research Review Board (SSRRB) rejected Harris' proposal. Despite this, Harris posted the survey on a public online forum. When the SSRRB became aware of the survey's existence, various communications were circulated in which Cadets were advised not to participate in the survey and Harris was recommended for disciplinary action. Harris submitted a grievance, arguing that the punitive measures taken by the SSRRB were unjustified and had caused her damages, including harm to her personal and professional reputation. The Chief of Defence Staff dismissed the grievance. Harris applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Armed Forces - Topic 7081

Military personnel - Discipline - Jurisdiction - Harris, a reserve officer with the Canadian Forces (CF) and a former cadet, was pursuing graduate studies - As part of her thesis research, she wanted to survey Cadets - The CF's Social Science Research Review Board (SSRRB) rejected Harris' proposal, as it had ethical and technical concerns regarding the issue of parental consent and the methodology being employed - Despite this, Harris posted the survey on a public online forum - When the SSRRB became aware of the survey's existence, various communications were circulated in which Cadets were advised not to participate in the survey and Harris was recommended for disciplinary action - Harris submitted a grievance, arguing that the punitive measures taken by the SSRRB were unjustified and had caused her damages, including harm to her personal and professional reputation - She asserted that she had pursued graduate studies as a civilian rather than as a member of the CF, and the CF should not have interfered in her personal affairs - The Chief of Defence Staff dismissed the grievance, finding that the CF's response to Harris' actions was reasonable and justifiable in light of the duty of care it owed to the Cadets - Harris applied for judicial review - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The CF was entitled to intervene with the Cadet corps chain of command in order to fulfill their obligation of protecting the Cadets - While not all of the impugned communications were useful in achieving this objective, it was sufficient redress that the CF personnel had been reminded to be conscious of the content of their emails and to exercise better discretion when forwarding emails - Harris failed to provide evidence of any effect on her personal and professional reputation or the future of her career - In any event, the decision-maker under the National Defence Act's grievance process did not have the power to award any monetary relief, so the damages sought by Harris could not be afforded as an administrative redress.

Armed Forces - Topic 8402

Grievances - General - Jurisdiction - [See Armed Forces - Topic 7081 ].

Cases Noticed:

Snieder v. Canada (Attorney General) (2013), 427 F.T.R. 294; 2013 FC 218, refd to. [para. 30].

Vézina v. Canada (Chief of Defence Staff) et al. (2012), 411 F.T.R. 303; 2012 FC 625, refd to. [para. 30].

Rompré v. Canada (Attorney General) (2012), 404 F.T.R. 161; 2012 FC 101, refd to. [para. 30].

Zimmerman v. Canada (Attorney General) (2011), 415 N.R. 13; 2011 FCA 43, refd to. [para. 30].

Codrin v. Canada (Attorney General) (2011), 379 F.T.R. 302; 2011 FC 100, refd to. [para. 30].

Birks v. Canada (Attorney General) (2010), 375 F.T.R. 83; 2010 FC 1018, refd to. [para. 30].

Awan v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 942; 2010 BCSC 942, refd to. [para. 34].

White v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] B.C.T.C. 1164; 2002 BCSC 1164, refd to. [para. 34].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 38].

Bernath v. Canada (2007), 321 F.T.R. 1; 2007 FC 104, affd. (2007), 375 N.R. 179; 2007 FCA 400, refd to. [para. 41].

Counsel:

Michel Drapeau and Joshua Juneau, for the applicant;

Hélène Robertson, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Michel Drapeau and Joshua Juneau, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

Hélène Robertson and Myles J. Kirvan, Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application for judicial review was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on April 29, 2013, before Gagné, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment and reasons for judgment on May 29, 2013.