Salmon v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 1098

• Judge: Kane, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 17, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2014 FC 1098;(2014), 468 F.T.R. 204 (FC)

Salmon v. Can. (A.G.) (2014), 468 F.T.R. 204 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] F.T.R. TBEd. DE.004

Charles Henry Salmon (applicant) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-1810-13; 2014 FC 1098)

Indexed As: Salmon v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

Kane, J.

November 20, 2014.

Summary:

Salmon was employed as a ramp agent with Servisair at the Lester B. Pearson International Airport. The Director General of Aviation Security, on behalf of the Minister of Transport, cancelled Salmon's Transportation Security Clearance pursuant to s. 4.8 of the Aeronautics Act. Salmon applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 612

The hearing and decision - Disclosure by tribunal - Of investigative results or notes - [See first Aeronautics - Topic 1844 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2266

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - What constitutes procedural fairness - [See first Aeronautics - Topic 1844 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2617

Natural justice - Evidence and proof - Disclosure - [See first Aeronautics - Topic 1844 ].

Aeronautics - Topic 1844

Airports - Operation of - Security - Security programs - Salmon was employed as a ramp agent at an international airport - As a result of suspicions that Salmon belonged to a group of corrupt employees who were smuggling drugs through the airport, Transport Canada cancelled Salmon's Transportation Security Clearance (TSC) - Salmon applied for judicial review - He argued that he was denied procedural fairness because, inter alia, the information disclosed to him regarding the review of his TSC failed to disclose the identity of an alleged associate (Subject A) who was a key player in the importation of drugs at the airport and whom Salmon had incorrectly assumed was someone else - The Federal Court held that there was no breach of procedural fairness - The duty of procedural fairness owed in these circumstances was not high - The decision to revoke his TSC did not hinge on Salmon's association with Subject A - Further, Salmon was provided with information that should have permitted him to know who Subject A was - Transport Canada's failure to advise Salmon that he was mistaken about Subject A's identity, based on concerns about breaching privacy rights and/or impacting an investigation, did not constitute a breach of procedural fairness - See paragraphs 46 to 61.

Aeronautics - Topic 1844

Airports - Operation of - Security - Security programs - Salmon was employed as a ramp agent at an international airport - Transport Canada cancelled Salmon's Transportation Security Clearance (TSC) based on the following: (a) a reliable human source indicated that Salmon had attended the airport on his days off in order to retrieve controlled substances from international flights; (b) police had observed Salmon conducting drug transactions in his own neighbourhood on several occasions (charges were stayed); and (c) police suspected that Salmon was involved with a group of corrupt employees who were smuggling drugs through the airport (others were charged but Salmon was not) - The Federal Court dismissed Salmon's application for judicial review - The above factors were more than sufficient to support Transport Canada's decision - The fact that Salmon had provided a false address to benefit from lower car insurance was also a relevant consideration in assessing his judgment and character - The allegations spoke to Salmon's trustworthiness and respect for the law, which in turn supported the reasonable belief on a balance of probabilities that Salmon might commit, or aid and abet another to commit, an act that might unlawfully interfere with civil aviation - See paragraphs 72 to 87.

Cases Noticed:

Russo v. Canada (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities) (2011), 406 F.T.R. 49; 2011 FC 764, refd to. [para. 27].

Peles v. Canada (Attorney General), [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 143; 228 A.C.W.S.(3d) 314; 2013 FC 294, refd to. [para. 27].

Pouliot v. Canada (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities), [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 195; 216 A.C.W.S.(3d) 527; 2012 FC 347, refd to. [para. 27].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 29].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 29].

Knight v. Board of Education of Indian Head School Division No. 19, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 653; 106 N.R. 17; 83 Sask.R. 81, refd to. [para. 31].

Rivet v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2007), 325 F.T.R. 178; 2007 FC 1175, refd to. [para. 39].

Clue v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 175; 200 A.C.W.S.(3d) 4; 2011 FC 323, refd to. [para. 40].

May et al. v. Ferndale Institution et al., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 809; 343 N.R. 69; 220 B.C.A.C. 1; 362 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 82, refd to. [para. 40].

Lorenzen v. Transport Canada Safety & Security, [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 102; 239 A.C.W.S.(3d) 10; 2014 FC 273, refd to. [para. 44].

Fontaine v. Transport Canada Safety and Security (2007), 313 F.T.R. 309; 2007 FC 1160, refd to. [para. 53].

Farwaha v. Canada (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities) (2014), 455 N.R. 157; 238 A.C.W.S.(3d) 282; 2014 FCA 56, refd to. [para. 53].

Ho v. Canada (Attorney General) (2013), 438 F.T.R. 98; 2013 FC 865, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Mann (P.H.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59; 324 N.R. 215; 187 Man.R.(2d) 1; 330 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 64].

MacDonnell v. Canada (Attorney General) (2013), 435 F.T.R. 202; 2013 FC 719, refd to. [para. 75].

Thep-Outhainthany v. Canada (Attorney General) (2013), 425 F.T.R. 247; 224 A.C.W.S.(3d) 538; 2013 FC 59, refd to. [para. 81].

Dolinski v. Canada (Attorney General) (2013), 440 F.T.R. 160; 233 A.C.W.S.(3d) 532; 2013 FC 1030, refd to. [para. 83].

Counsel:

Mercedes Perez, for the applicant;

Jacqueline Wilson, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Swadron Associates, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application for judicial review was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on September 17, 2014, before Kane, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment and reasons at Ottawa, Ontario, on November 20, 2014.