Sandiford v. Canada, (2007) 309 F.T.R. 233 (FC)

• Judge: Layden-Stevenson, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 20, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2007), 309 F.T.R. 233 (FC);2007 FC 225

Sandiford v. Can. (2007), 309 F.T.R. 233 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] F.T.R. TBEd. MR.026

Calvin Sandiford (plaintiff) v. Her Majesty The Queen (defendant)

(T-1685-05; 2007 FC 225)

Indexed As: Sandiford v. Canada

Federal Court

Layden-Stevenson, J.

February 27, 2007.

Summary:

Sandiford, a Canadian Forces officer, filed a grievance, alleging that he had been improperly excluded from consideration for certain positions. After being advised that the officer in charge had no record of the grievance, Sandiford resubmitted it and, two days later, filed a statement of claim against the defendant, alleging breaches of statutory and fiduciary duties, constitutional rights and negligence. The grievance was placed in abeyance pending resolution of the claim. The defendant sought to strike the claim on the basis that Sandiford had failed to exhaust the grievance process.

A Prothonotary allowed the defendant's motion. Sandiford appealed.

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal.

Armed Forces - Topic 7

General - Grievances - Civil action barred - Sandiford, a Canadian Forces officer, filed a grievance in July 2005, alleging that he had been improperly excluded from consideration for certain positions - In September 2005, after being advised that the officer in charge had no record of the grievance, Sandiford resubmitted it and, two days later, filed a statement of claim against the defendant, alleging breaches of statutory and fiduciary duties, constitutional rights and negligence - The grievance was placed in abeyance pending resolution of the claim - A Prothonotary allowed the defendant's motion to strike the claim on the basis that Sandiford had failed to exhaust the grievance process - Sandiford appealed, asserting that his action concerned the merits of the grievance scheme, itself, and that the defendant's failure to follow the law was the only issue - The Federal Court dismissed the appeal - Sandiford's complaint was that his superiors failed to place him where he wished to be placed - That was a matter that clearly fell within the grievance procedure - Sandiford had an adequate alternative remedy that had to be exhausted before he turned to the court - The action had no chance of success - The Prothonotary correctly struck it without leave to amend - See paragraphs 23 to 36.

Courts - Topic 2584

Registrars and prothonotaries - Appeals from - Evidence (incl. new evidence) - Sandiford, a Canadian Forces officer, filed a grievance in July 2005, alleging that he had been improperly excluded from consideration for certain positions - In September 2005, after being advised that the officer in charge had no record of the grievance, Sandiford resubmitted it and, two days later, filed a statement of claim against the defendant, alleging breaches of statutory and fiduciary duties, constitutional rights and negligence - The grievance was placed in abeyance pending resolution of the claim - A Prothonotary allowed the defendant's motion to strike the claim on the basis that Sandiford had failed to exhaust the grievance process - Sandiford appealed, seeking to admit 215 pages of new evidence consisting of orders, directives, policy statements and website postings with dates ranging from October 1999 to September 2006 - The Federal Court held that the new evidence was not admissible - The issue on appeal was not to determine the merits of Sandiford's complaint, but to determine the appropriate forum for that hearing - None of the new evidence filed was probative to that issue and, thus, could not affect the appeal's outcome - Further, nearly all of the documentation was available prior to the hearing before the Prothonotary - See paragraphs 13 to 22.

Courts - Topic 4032

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Military matters - [See Armed Forces - Topic 7 ].

Courts - Topic 4052

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Requirement of lack of other remedy - [See Armed Forces - Topic 7 ].

Cases Noticed:

Grenier v. Canada, [2006] 2 F.C.R. 287; 344 N.R. 102; 262 D.L.R.(4th) 337; 2005 FCA 348, refd to. [para. 8].

Graham v. Canada, [2007] F.T.R. Uned. 829; 2007 FC 210, refd to. [para. 10].

James River Corp. of Virginia v. Hallmark Cards Inc. et al. (1997), 126 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Symbol Yachts Ltd. et al. v. Pearson et al., [1996] 2 F.C. 391; 107 F.T.R. 295 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 15].

Canada v. Mid-Atlantic Minerals Inc., [2003] 1 F.C. 168; 223 F.T.R. 252 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

Marrazza, Re (2004), 256 F.T.R. 1 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

Rhéaume v. Canada, [2003] F.T.R. Uned. 951; 2003 FC 1405, refd to. [para. 15].

Odessa Partnership et al. v. Minister of National Revenue, [2003] F.T.R. Uned. 859; 2003 FC 1420, refd to. [para. 15].

Mazhero v. Industrial Relations Board (Can.) et al. (2002), 292 N.R. 187 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425; 149 N.R. 273 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Merck & Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc., [2004] 2 F.C.R. 459; 315 N.R. 175; 30 C.P.R.(4th) 40; 2003 FCA 488, refd to. [para. 23].

Lazar v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1999), 168 F.T.R. 11 (T.D.), affd. (2001), 271 N.R. 10 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Anderson v. Canada (Minister of National Defence) et al., [1997] 1 F.C. 273; 205 N.R. 350 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Gallant v. Canada (1978), 91 D.L.R.(3d) 695 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 28].

Jones v. Canada et al. (1994), 87 F.T.R. 190 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 28].

Pilon v. Canada (1996), 119 F.T.R. 269 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 28].

Villeneuve v. Canada et al. (1997), 130 F.T.R. 134 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 28].

Haswell v. Canada (Attorney General) (1998), 56 O.T.C. 143 (Gen. Div.), affd. (1998), 116 O.A.C. 395 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 29].

Vaughan v. Canada, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 146; 331 N.R. 64; 2005 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 29].

Smith v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2006), 300 N.B.R.(2d) 363; 782 A.P.R. 363 (T.D.), dist. [para. 35].

Counsel:

Calvin Sandiford, on his own behalf;

Valerie Anderson and Ward Bansley, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendant.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on February 20, 2007, with further submissions received on February 23, 2007, by Layden-Stevenson, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for order on February 27, 2007.