Morneault v. Canada (Attorney General), (2000) 256 N.R. 85 (FCA)

• Judge: Stone, Strayer and Robertson, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: March 21, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2000), 256 N.R. 85 (FCA)

Morneault v. Can. (A.G.) (2000), 256 N.R. 85 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] N.R. TBEd. JN.053

The Attorney General of Canada (appellant) v. Lieutenant-Colonel Paul R. Morneault (respondent)

(A-346-98)

Indexed As: Morneault v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court of Appeal

Stone, Strayer and Robertson, JJ.A.

May 24, 2000.

Summary:

In March of 1995, the Governor-in-Coun­cil established the Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia (the Commission). The Commis­sion's mandate required it "to inquire into and report on" six matters and 19 specific issues with respect to the Canadian Forces deployment to Somalia. The Com­mission divided the inquiry into three phases: Pre-Deployment, In-Theatre and Post-Deploy­ment. The inquiry was termin­ated when the Commission was part way through its inves­tigation into the second stage. Subsequently, the Commission released a five volume Re­port entitled "Dis­honoured Legacy". The first three volumes identified systemic or institu­tional faults in the pre-deployment stage. The fourth vol­ume singled out 11 senior of­ficers and made findings of miscon­duct against them. One of the officers (Mor­neault) applied for an order quashing the Commission's findings as contained in the Report.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported 150 F.T.R. 28, granted the application and issued a decla­ration that the Commission's findings of individual misconduct against Morneault were invalid. The court also granted a dec­laration that the Report's two general state­ments of condemnation did not apply to him. The Attorney General of Canada appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, set aside the order of the Trial Division and substituted a declaration that two particular general statements in the Commission's Report did not apply to Mor­neault. Otherwise the court dismissed Mor­neault's application for judicial review.

Administrative Law - Topic 7912

Public inquiries - Procedural fairness - A Commission of Inquiry was established to look into the Deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia - The Commission's Report identified or suggested misconduct on the part of, inter alia, Morneault, a senior officer - Morneault applied to quash the Commis­sion's find­ings, alleging a lack of pro­cedural fairness and the absence of evidentiary support - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Mor­neault's judicial review application, except for making a declaration that two of the general state­ments in the Com­missions's Report did not apply to Mor­neault - See paragraphs 12 to 34.

Administrative Law - Topic 7912

Public inquiries - Procedural fairness - Notice - A Commission of Inquiry was established to look into the Deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia - The Com­mission's Report identified or suggested misconduct on the part of, inter alia, Mor­neault, a senior officer - Morneault applied to quash the Com­mis­sion's find­ings, argu­ing that he was not given rea­sonable notice of the matters that were eventually cited by the Commis­sion as grounds for findings of misconduct - The motions judge agreed that there was a lack of notice and issued a declaration that the Report's gen­eral statements of con­demna­tion did not refer to Morneault and that the findings of in­dividual miscon­duct against Morneault were invalid - The Attorney General of Canada appealed - The Federal Court of Appeal disagreed regarding the issue of reasonable notice - See para­graphs 19 to 34.

Administrative Law - Topic 7985

Public inquiries - Judicial review - Scope of review - A Commission of Inquiry was established to look into the Deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia - The Com­mission's Report identified or suggested misconduct on the part of, inter alia, Mor­neault, a senior officer - Morneault applied to quash the Com­mis­sion's find­ings, argu­ing that the find­ings were not supported by the evi­dence - The Crown submitted that the Com­mission's findings were not deci­sions reviewable under s. 18.1(4)(d) of the Fed­eral Court Act because there were no legal conse­quences to the Commission's findings - The motions judge ruled that the find­ings were reviewable and were not supported by the record - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed that the findings were reviewable under s. 18.1 - However, there was some evi­dence to support each of the findings which the motions judge found to be un­sup­ported - See paragraphs 34 to 48.

Courts - Topic 4021.1

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Decisions of federal boards, commissions or tribunals - [See Administrative Law - Topic 7985 ].

Cases Noticed:

Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 440; 216 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 2].

Krever - see Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada et al.

Merricks v. Nott-Bower, [1964] 1 All E.R. 717, refd to. [para. 27].

Landreville v. Canada, [1973] F.C. 1223 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 27].

Peters v. Davidson, [1999] 2 N.Z.L.R. 164 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Canadian Fishing Co. et al. v. Smith, [1962] S.C.R. 294, refd to. [para. 34].

Moumdjian v. Security Intelligence Review Committee et al., [1999] 4 F.C. 624; 246 N.R. 287 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Nenn v. Canada, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 631; 36 N.R. 487, refd to. [para. 41].

Krause et al. v. Canada et al., [1999] 2 F.C. 476; 236 N.R. 317 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Sweet et al. v. Canada (1999), 249 N.R. 17 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Devinat v. Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada, [2000] 2 F.C. 212; 250 N.R. 326 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Al Yamani v. Canada (Solicitor General) et al., [1996] 1 F.C. 174; 103 F.T.R. 105 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 43].

Mahon v. Air New Zealand Ltd., [1984] 1 A.C. 808 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 44].

Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada et al., [1996] 3 F.C. 259; 115 F.T.R. 81 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 44].

Ontario Public Service Employees' Union, Thibert, Jung and McGill v. Ontario (Minister of Correctional Services) (1984), 2 O.A.C. 351; 45 O.R.(2d) 70 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 44].

Hamilton Street Railway Co. v. Amalga­mated Transit Union, Local 1585, [1996] O.J. No. 3039 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 44].

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 579 v. Bradco Construction Ltd., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 316; 153 N.R. 81; 106 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 140; 334 A.P.R. 140, refd to. [para. 46].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 18.1 [para. 38]; sect. 18.1(4)(d) [para. 36].

Inquiries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-11, sect. 13 [para. 20].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, D., and Evans, J.M., Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada (1998), para. 2:4420, note 476 [para. 40].

Wade, W., and Forsyth, C., Administrative Law (1994), p. 540 [para. 44].

Counsel:

Ivan Whitehall, Q.C., Lynn Watt and Cat­arine Moore, for the appellant;

Ronald Lunau and Mary Rose Ebos, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

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

Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 21, 2000, by Stone, Strayer and Robertson, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The following decision of the court was delivered on May 24, 2000, by Stone, J.A.