Hudon v. Canada (Attorney General), (2009) 364 F.T.R. 49 (FC)

• Judge: Boivin, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 14, 2009
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2009), 364 F.T.R. 49 (FC);2009 FC 1092

Hudon v. Can. (A.G.) (2009), 364 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: [2009] F.T.R. TBEd. OC.037

Charles Hudon (demandeur) v. Le Procureur général du Canada (défendeur)

(T-443-09; 2009 CF 1092; 2009 FC 1092)

Indexed As: Hudon v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

Boivin, J.

October 26, 2009.

Summary:

Hudon was a member of the Canadian Forces. He filed a grievance under s. 29 of the National Defence Act. The initial authority denied the grievance at the first level. Hudon received notice of the decision on June 24, 2008. Under s. 7.10 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders (QRO), Hudon had until September 22, 2008 (90 days) to submit his grievance to the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS). On September 16, 2008 and October 22, 2008, Hudon requested extensions of time, which were denied on the basis that there was no authority in the QRO to extend time limits. The Grievance Authority received Hudon's grievance on November 21, 2008. Under s. 7.10(4) of the QRO, the Grievance Authority could accept an out of time grievance if it was "in the interests of justice" to do so. After considering Hudon's explanation that the delay was due to his counsel's heavy workload, the Grievance Authority decided not to refer the grievance to the CDS. Hudon sought judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 2267

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Reasonable expectation or legitimate expectation - [See second Armed Forces - Topic 8545 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 549

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Reasons for decisions - Sufficiency of - [See second Armed Forces - Topic 8545 ].

Armed Forces - Topic 8545

Grievances - Procedure - Limitation period - Hudon was a member of the Canadian Forces - He filed a grievance under s. 29 of the National Defence Act - The initial authority denied the grievance at the first level - Hudon received notice of the decision on June 24, 2008 - Under s. 7.10 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders (QRO), Hudon had until September 22, 2008 (90 days) to submit his grievance to the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) - On September 16, 2008 and October 22, 2008, Hudon requested extensions of time, which were denied on the basis that there was no authority in the QRO to extend time limits - The Grievance Authority received Hudon's grievance on November 21, 2008 - Under s. 7.10(4) of the QRO, the Grievance Authority could accept an out of time grievance if it was "in the interests of justice" to do so - After considering Hudon's explanation that the delay was due to his counsel's heavy workload, the Grievance Authority decided not to refer the grievance to the CDS - Hudon sought judicial review - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The nearly two month delay did not result from an event that was unforeseen, unexpected or beyond Hudon's control - Granting an extension of time solely on the ground that the firm's heavy workload caused the delay in question was not in the interests of justice - If extensions were to be granted for that reason alone, the mechanism under s. 7.10 would be rendered meaningless - The Grievance Authority's decision was reasonable - See paragraphs 17 to 33.

Armed Forces - Topic 8545

Grievances - Procedure - Limitation period - Hudon was a member of the Canadian Forces - He filed a grievance under s. 29 of the National Defence Act - The initial authority denied the grievance at the first level - Hudon received notice of the decision on June 24, 2008 - Under s. 7.10 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders (QRO), Hudon had until September 22, 2008 (90 days) to submit his grievance to the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) - On September 16, 2008 and October 22, 2008, Hudon requested extensions of time, which were denied on the basis that there was no authority in the QRO to extend time limits - The Grievance Authority received Hudon's grievance on November 21, 2008 - Under s. 7.10(4) of the QRO, the Grievance Authority could accept an out of time grievance if it was "in the interests of justice" to do so - After considering Hudon's explanation that the delay was due to his counsel's heavy workload, the Grievance Authority decided not to refer the grievance to the CDS - Hudon sought judicial review - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The Grievance Authority correctly concluded that the grievance had been submitted out of time without reasonable cause and provided intelligible reasons for its decision - The decision was neither capricious nor abusive - Nor did Hudon have a legitimate expectation that the time limit would be extended - Nothing in the record revealed statements that would have created such an expectation - See paragraphs 34 to 39.

Armed Forces - Topic 8562

Grievances - Judicial review - Standard of review - Hudon was a member of the Canadian Forces - He filed a grievance under s. 29 of the National Defence Act - The initial authority denied the grievance at the first level - Hudon received notice of the decision on June 24, 2008 - Under s. 7.10 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders (QRO), Hudon had until September 22, 2008 (90 days) to submit his grievance to the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) - On September 16, 2008 and October 22, 2008, Hudon requested extensions of time, which were denied on the basis that there was no authority in the QRO to extend time limits - The Grievance Authority received Hudon's grievance on November 21, 2008 - Under s. 7.10(4) of the QRO, the Grievance Authority could accept an out of time grievance if it was "in the interests of justice" to do so - After considering Hudon's explanation that the delay was due to his counsel's heavy workload, the Grievance Authority decided not to refer the grievance to the CDS - Hudon sought judicial review - The Federal Court held that, except for questions relating to procedural fairness, the Grievance Authority's determination, as a question of mixed fact and law, was subject to the reasonableness standard of review - See paragraphs 14 to 16.

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 15].

Chainnigh v. Canada (Attorney General) (2008), 322 F.T.R. 302; 2008 FC 69, refd to. [para. 15].

Armstrong v. Canada (Attorney General) (2006), 291 F.T.R. 49; 2006 FC 505, refd to. [para. 15].

Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539; 304 N.R. 76; 173 O.A.C. 38; 2003 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 16].

Ellis-Don Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 221; 265 N.R. 2; 140 O.A.C. 201; 2001 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 16].

Chin v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1993), 69 F.T.R. 77 (T.D.), agreed with [para. 29].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 37].

Statutes Noticed:

National Defence Act Regulations (Can.), Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Armed Forces, sect. 7.10 [para. 13].

Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Armed Forces - see National Defence Act Regulations (Can.).

Counsel:

Zorica Guzina, for the applicant;

Marie Crowley, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Michel Drapeau, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

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

This application was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 14, 2009, by Boivin, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on October 26, 2009.