Lamarche v. Canada (Attorney General), (2006) 293 F.T.R. 89 (FC)

• Judge: Hansen, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 06, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2006), 293 F.T.R. 89 (FC);2006 FC 776

Lamarche v. Can. (A.G.) (2006), 293 F.T.R. 89 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.012

Arthur J.M. Lamarche (applicant) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-299-04; 2006 FC 776)

Indexed As: Lamarche v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

Hansen, J.

June 19, 2006.

Summary:

Shortly after Lamarche retired from an executive position with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC), the Public Service Commission initiated an audit into OPC staffing practices. Lamarche was advised that his appointments would be investigated under s. 7.1 of the Public Service Employment Act. He asserted that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to conduct the investigation because he was no longer an employee. An investigator determined that she had jurisdiction. Lamarche sought judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Labour Law - Topic 9002

Public service labour relations - Authority of Commission or Commissioners - Shortly after Lamarche retired from an executive position with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC), the Public Service Commission initiated an audit into OPC staffing practices - Lamarche was advised that his appointments would be investigated under s. 7.1 of the Public Service Employment Act - Subsequently, a board of inquiry was established under s. 6.3 to investigate Lamarche's appointments - Lamarche asserted that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to investigate because he was no longer an employee - An investigator determined that she had jurisdiction - Lamarche sought judicial review - The Federal Court dismissed the application - Lamarche's employment status was immaterial on the narrow question of the Commission's s. 7.1 jurisdiction to investigate - However, regarding the potential remedial action, employment status might be relevant - The Commission could only revoke an appointment on a board of inquiry's recommendation - Where there was no longer an appointment to revoke, it was arguable that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to establish a board of inquiry - However, here, the board was established within the context of the broader investigation - The question became whether the board's role could be separated from the s. 7.1 investigation - The court held that it could - See paragraphs 33 to 63.

Labour Law - Topic 9323

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - Decisions of board or commission - Standard of review - Shortly after Lamarche retired from an executive position with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC), the Public Service Commission initiated an audit into OPC staffing practices - Lamarche was informed that the Commission would investigate his appointments - Lamarche challenged the Commission's jurisdiction to conduct an investigation after he had retired - An investigator determined that she had jurisdiction and completed her investigation - Lamarche sought judicial review - The Federal Court held that the appropriate standard of review on the question of the Commission's jurisdiction to investigate was correctness - See paragraphs 43 to 45.

Cases Noticed:

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Complaints Commissioner, Re, [1993] 2 F.C. 351; 61 F.T.R. 210 (T.D.), affd. [1994] 3 F.C. 562; 173 N.R. 290 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 35].

Chalmers v. Toronto Stock Exchange (1989), 70 O.R.(2d) 532 (C.A.), dist. [para. 36].

Maurice v. Priel, McKeague and Walker, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1023; 96 N.R. 178; 77 Sask.R. 22, dist. [para. 37].

Lo v. Public Service Commission Appeal Board (Can.) et al. (1997), 222 N.R. 393 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 42].

Davies v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2005), 330 N.R. 283; 2005 FCA 41, appld. [para. 44].

Noël v. Ministre de l'emploi et de l'immigration (1991), 136 N.R. 398 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 47].

Lepage v. Canada (Procureur général) (1999), 170 F.T.R. 281 (T.D.), consd. [para. 53].

Counsel:

John M. Connolly, for the applicant;

R. Jeff Anderson, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Connolly, Nichols, Allan & Carroll LLP, 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 March 6, 2006, by Hansen, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for order and order on June 19, 2006.