Holdenried v. Canada (Attorney General), (2012) 413 F.T.R. 49 (FC)

• Judge: Pinard, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 09, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2012), 413 F.T.R. 49 (FC);2012 FC 707

Holdenried v. Can. (A.G.) (2012), 413 F.T.R. 49 (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: [2012] F.T.R. TBEd. JN.041

Derrick Holdenried (applicant) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-966-11; 2012 FC 707; 2012 CF 707)

Indexed As: Holdenried v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

Pinard, J.

June 12, 2012.

Summary:

Constable Holdenried (the applicant) applied for judicial review of a decision of an Assistant Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, recommending the applicant's stoppage of pay and allowances pursuant to s. 22(3) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the R.C.M.P. Stoppage of Pay and Allowances Regulations. The respondent argued that the court should decline to exercise its jurisdiction and hear the application for judicial review because the applicant never properly availed himself of the remedies available to him under the grievance procedure provided for under s. 31 of the RCMP Act.

The Federal Court was satisfied that the grievance procedure was an adequate alternative remedy which the applicant had yet to fully avail himself of. The application for judicial review was premature and had to be dismissed.

Administrative Law - Topic 3302

Judicial review - General - Bars - Alternate remedy - [See Administrative Law - Topic 7096 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 7096

Judicial review - Bars - Discretionary bars - Existence of adequate alternative remedy - Constable Holdenried (the applicant) applied for judicial review of a decision of an Assistant Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police recommending the applicant's stoppage of pay and allowances pursuant to s. 22(3) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the R.C.M.P. Stoppage of Pay and Allowances Regulations - The respondent argued that the court should decline to exercise its jurisdiction and hear the application for judicial review because the applicant never properly availed himself of the remedies available to him under the grievance procedure provided for under s. 31 of the RCMP Act - At the same time that the applicant filed the application for judicial review, the applicant had also filed a grievance with respect to the decision presently the object of the judicial review - While the matter had been submitted to the level I grievance adjudicator in December 2011, a decision had yet to be rendered - The applicant claimed that adjudication could take many years - The applicant further claimed that the grievance mechanism was inadequate because he was raising jurisdictional arguments which were beyond the Assistant Commissioner's expertise - The Federal Court was satisfied that the grievance procedure was an adequate alternative remedy which the applicant had yet to fully avail himself of - The application for judicial review was premature and had to be dismissed.

Police - Topic 4077

Internal organization - Discipline of members - Grievances - [See Administrative Law - Topic 7096 ].

Police - Topic 4162

Internal organization - Discipline - Appeals and judicial review - When available - [See Administrative Law - Topic 7096 ].

Cases Noticed:

Phillips v. Harrison (2000), 153 Man.R.(2d) 1; 238 W.A.C. 1; 2000 MBCA 150, refd to. [para. 15].

Froom v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2005] 2 F.C.R. 195; 327 N.R. 304; 2004 FCA 352, refd to. [para. 16].

Bruno v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2006), 290 F.T.R. 220; 2006 FC 462, refd to. [para. 16].

Vaughan v. Canada, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 146; 331 N.R. 64; 2005 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 16].

George v. Canada (Attorney General), [2008] 1 F.C.R. 752; 313 F.T.R. 183; 2007 FC 564, refd to. [para. 17].

Royal Canadian Mounted Police v. Attorney General - see George v. Canada (Attorney General).

Secord et al. v. Board of Police Commissioners of Saint John (2006), 300 N.B.R.(2d) 202; 782 A.P.R. 202; 2006 NBQB 65, refd to. [para. 18].

Lebrasseur v. Canada (2007), 370 N.R. 193; 2007 FCA 330, refd to. [para. 19].

Marshall et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2008), 327 Sask.R. 1; 2008 SKQB 113, refd to. [para. 19].

Smith v. Canada (2007), 316 N.B.R.(2d) 180; 816 A.P.R. 180; 2007 NBCA 58, refd to. [para. 19].

Merrifield v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2009] O.A.C. Uned. 81; 2009 ONCA 127, refd to. [para. 19].

Sauve v. Canada (1998), 157 F.T.R. 91 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 19].

Counsel:

G. James Baugh, for the applicant;

Jennifer Dagsvik, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

McGrady & Company, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the applicant;

Myles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on May 9, 2012, at Vancouver, British Columbia, before Pinard, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on June 12, 2012.