McCleery v. RCMP Commr., (1974) 5 N.R. 251 (FCA)

JudgeThurlow, Pratte and Ryan, JJ.
CourtFederal Court of Appeal (Canada)
Case DateAugust 02, 1974
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1974), 5 N.R. 251 (FCA)

McCleery v. RCMP Commr. (1974), 5 N.R. 251 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

McCleery v. Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (No. 3)

Indexed As: McCleery v. Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (No. 3)

Federal Court of Appeal

Thurlow, Pratte and Ryan, JJ.

August 2, 1974.

Summary:

This case arose out of a motion by the Commissioner of the R.C.M.P. to quash an application to the Federal Court of Appeal for a review of a discharge of a member of the R.C.M.P. by the Commissioner of the R.C.M.P. The Commissioner alleged that employees of the R.C.M.P. were employed at the pleasure of the government and could be discharged at any time without cause. The Federal Court of Appeal interpreted the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the regulations and rules made pursuant to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and dismissed the motion to quash by the Commissioner.

The Federal Court of Appeal stated that the power of the Commissioner to discharge a member of the R.C.M.P. was judicial in nature because the statutory rules and regulations required that the employee be given an opportunity to be heard before being discharged. Accordingly, the power exercised by the Commissioner was exercised on a "judicial or quasi-judicial basis" as required by s. 28 of the Federal Court Act and could be reviewed by the Federal Court of Appeal.

Courts - Topic 4085

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Appeal to review the discharge of a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police by the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police - Federal Court Act, s. 28 - Whether the power to discharge was a power required to be exercised on a "judicial or quasijudicial basis" - The Federal Court of Appeal held that it had jurisdiction to review the discharge - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that the power of the Commissioner was judicial in nature because statutory regulations required that the employee be given an opportunity to be heard before being discharged.

Statutes - Topic 5355

Operation - Delegated legislation - Regulations - Force and effect of regulations - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that regulations have a statutory effect and that statutes must be interpreted subject to the content of the regulations - See paragraphs 12, 13, 22, 27 and 28.

Administrative Law - Topic 1212

Classification of power - Quasijudicial powers - Discharge of a government employee - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the Commissioner of the R.C.M.P. exercised a quasijudicial function when the Commissioner discharged a member of the R.C.M.P.

Administrative Law - Topic 264

The hearing - Right to a hearing where a government employee was discharged - Rule 1200 made pursuant to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act granted a member before his discharge, the right to "appeal" his discharge to the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police - The Federal Court of Appeal held that Rule 1200 required the Commission to proceed on a quasi-judicial basis and to give interested parties an opportunity to be heard - See paragraphs 22 and 27.

Words and Phrases

Judicial or quasi-judicial basis - The Federal Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the words "judicial or quasi-judicial basis" as found in s. 28 of the Federal Court Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 1.

Cases Noticed:

Ridge Baldwin, [1964] A.C. 40, refd to. [para. 9].

Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works (1863), 14 C.B.N.S. 180, folld. [para. 11].

Blais v. Basford, [1972] C.T. 151, folld. [para. 22].

Lazarov v. Secretary of State of Canada, [1973] F.C. 927, folld. [para. 22].

Howarth v. National Parole Board, [1973] F.C. 1018, folld. [para. 22].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 1, sect. 2 [para. 3]; sect. 28(1) [para. 2].

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. R-9, sect. 13, sect. 21 [para. 6].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-23, sect. 22(1) [para. 12].

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act Regulations, sect. 150, sect. 151, sect. 173 [para. 8].

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act Rules, rule 1200 [para. 8].

Counsel:

Arthur H. Campeau, for the applicant;

I.G. Whitehall, for the respondent;

Paul J. Evraire, for the mis-en-cause.

This appeal was heard by the Federal Court of Appeal at Montreal, Quebec on June 19 and 20, 1974. Judgment was delivered by the Federal Court of Appeal on August 2, 1974 and the following opinions were filed:

THURLOW, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 19.

PRATTE, J. - see paragraphs 20 to 23.

RYAN, J. - see paragraphs 24 to 30.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Clark v. Can., (1994) 76 F.T.R. 241 (TD)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court
    • 26 de Abril de 1994
    ...Wrongful dismissal - [See Crown - Topic 1095 ]. Cases Noticed: McCleery v. Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (No. 3) (1974), 5 N.R. 251; 48 D.L.R.(3d) 129 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 33, footnote 8]. Gallant v. R. (1978), 91 D.L.R.(3d) 695 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 34,......
1 cases
  • Clark v. Can., (1994) 76 F.T.R. 241 (TD)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court
    • 26 de Abril de 1994
    ...Wrongful dismissal - [See Crown - Topic 1095 ]. Cases Noticed: McCleery v. Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (No. 3) (1974), 5 N.R. 251; 48 D.L.R.(3d) 129 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 33, footnote 8]. Gallant v. R. (1978), 91 D.L.R.(3d) 695 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 34,......