Millard v. Canada (Attorney General), (2000) 253 N.R. 187 (FCA)

• Judge: Décary, Sexton and Evans, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: March 02, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2000), 253 N.R. 187 (FCA)

Millard v. Can. (A.G.) (2000), 253 N.R. 187 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] N.R. TBEd. MR.041

The Attorney General of Canada (appellant) v. Claude Ranson Millard (respondent)

(A-495-98)

Indexed As: Millard v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court of Appeal

Décary, Sexton and Evans, JJ.A.

March 2, 2000.

Summary:

An RCMP officer was denied relocation compensation. He grieved. The External Review Committee denied the grievance. The Commissioner upheld the External Review Committee's finding. The RCMP officer applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported at 149 F.T.R. 200, allowed the application, set aside the Commissioner's decision and remitted the matter to the Commissioner for a rede­termi­na­tion. The court further directed that the only issues remaining for determi­nation were those issues left undetermined by the Com­mittee chairperson. The Attorney Gen­eral appealed the decision.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the decision of the Com­missioner, where it was not patently unrea­sonable.

Administrative Law - Topic 9118

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Curial deference to decisions of tribunals -An RCMP officer was denied relocation compensation - He grieved - The External Review Committee denied the grievance - The Commissioner upheld the External Review Committee's interpretation of the relocation rules and affirmed the Commit­tee's decision - The RCMP officer applied for judicial review - The motions judge set aside the Commissioner's decision, holding that it was incorrect because of misinter­pretation of the relocation rules - The Federal Court of Appeal restored the deci­sion of the Commissioner, where it was not patently unreasonable - The Com­mis­sioner's decision was subject to minimal judicial scrutiny - Accordingly, the stan­dard of review was not that of correctness but of patent unreasonableness - See para­graphs 6 to 13.

Family Law - Topic 1002

Common law or same sex relationships - Spouse - Meaning of - Under the RCMP relocation rules, a member was entitled to Home Equity Assistance Protection (HEAP) for a principal residence owned and occupied by the member or his spouse - Millard separated from his wife and relocated to Ontario - He obtained a divorce - Prior to the divorce, he began cohabiting with Baker in Baker's home - When he decided to make a pre-retirement move, he claimed HEAP respecting a loss sustained on the sale of Baker's home on the basis that she was his common law spouse - The motions judge concluded that the criteria in the definition of spouse under the relocation rules, did not include the requirement of freedom to marry - Therefore, Millard's marriage did not affect Baker's status as common law wife -The Federal Court of Appeal found it unnec­essary to determine the issue - See para­graph 17.

Police - Topic 4046

Internal organization - Transfer of mem­bers - Expenses - Under the RCMP relo­cation rules, a member was entitled to Home Equity Assistance Protection (HEAP) respecting a principal residence owned and occupied by the member or his spouse - Millard and his wife owned an occupied a house in B.C. - They separated and Millard was transferred to Ontario - Millard elected to retain his B.C. residence under s. 4.4.4. of the relocation rules - Millard began cohabiting with Baker in a residence owned by Baker - Millard and his wife divorced - Subsequently, Millard decided to make a pre-retirement move - He gave up his option on the B.C. resi­dence and sought HEAP compensation respecting the loss sustained on the sale of the Ontario residence - The Commissioner held that the acquisition date of the Ontario property was the date that Millard gave up his B.C. property - The motions judge held that the acquisition date of the Ontario property did not depend on the date that Millard gave up his B.C. property - The Federal Court of Appeal restored the Commissioner's decision, where it was not patently unreasonable.

Police - Topic 6742

Police Commission - Judicial review - Scope of review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 9118 ].

Counsel:

Sadian G. Campbell, for the appellant;

Thomas E. Cole, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Thomas E. Cole, Lakefield, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on March 2, 2000, before Décary, Sexton and Evans, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. On March 2, 2000, Evans, J.A., delivered the following judgment orally for the court.