Stevens v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 FC 1746

• Judge: O'Keefe, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 01, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2004 FC 1746;(2004), 266 F.T.R. 202 (FC)

Stevens v. Can. (A.G.) (2004), 266 F.T.R. 202 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] F.T.R. TBEd. JA.009

Sinclair M. Stevens (plaintiff) v. The Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-2682-87; 2004 FC 1746)

Indexed As: Stevens v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

O'Keefe, J.

December 15, 2004.

Summary:

Stevens was a Member of Parliament from 1972 to 1988. He also served as a Minister of the Crown. In 1986, Stevens resigned as a Minister after allegations of conflict of interest were made against him. Parker, J., was appointed to conduct a commission of inquiry. Parker, J., released his Report in December 1987. Stevens sued the Attorney General of Canada, seeking a declaration that the Report be set aside.

The Federal Court allowed the action, set aside the Report and declared it to be of no force and effect.

Administrative Law - Topic 7912

Public inquiries - General - Procedural fairness - Parker was appointed to conduct a commission of inquiry into allegations of conflict of interest of Stevens, former Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister - Given that no guidelines or codes included a definition of "conflict of interest", Parker drafted his own and included it in his Report, which was released in 1987 - Stevens sued the Attorney General of Canada - Stevens argued that his right to procedural fairness and natural justice was breached - The Federal Court allowed the action - Stevens did not know the standard he was to be judged against as the definition of conflict of interest was not made known to him until the Report was given to him - The definition should have been stated in the various conflict of interest guidelines or codes - Moreover, Stevens did not have "full opportunity to be heard", as required by s. 13 of the Inquiries Act, when he did not know what the standard or the definition of conflict of interest was until he read about it in the Report - See paragraphs 38 to 47.

Administrative Law - Topic 7924

Public inquiries - Creation of - Jurisdiction - Parker was appointed to conduct a commission of inquiry into allegations of conflict of interest of Stevens, former Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister - Parker was given the jurisdiction to inquire into and report on "whether ... Stevens was in real or apparent conflict of interest as defined by the Conflict of Interest and Post Employment Code for Public Office Holders [the Mulroney Code] and the letter from the Prime Minister to ... Stevens" - Parker released his Report in December 1987 - Parker concluded that conflict of interest guidelines set up by former premier Trudeau and the Mulroney Code applied to Stevens - However, neither the guidelines nor the Code offered a definition of "conflict of interest" - Consequently, Parker drafted a definition and included it in his Report - Stevens sued the Attorney General of Canada - Stevens argued that Parker exceeded his jurisdiction by drafting a definition of "conflict of interest" - The Federal Court allowed the action - Parker was directed to determine whether Stevens was in conflict of interest as defined by the Mulroney Code - Parker did not have the jurisdiction to draft and utilize his own definition of conflict of interest - See paragraphs 22 to 36.

Cases Noticed:

Landreville v. Canada (1977), 75 D.L.R.(3d) 380 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 19].

Phillips et al. v. Richard, J., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 97; 180 N.R. 1; 141 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 403 A.P.R. 1; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 129, refd to. [para. 20].

Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada et al., [1997] 2 F.C. 36; 207 N.R. 1 (F.C.A.); affd. (1997), 216 N.R. 321; 151 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 38].

Statutes Noticed:

Inquiries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-11, sect. 13 [para. 17].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Conflict of Interests, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, 3rd sess., 34th Parliament, Issue No. 3, p. 31 [para. 40].

Counsel:

Peter Jervis and Gillian Hnatiw, for the plaintiff;

Sean Gaudet and Kathryn Hucal, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Lerner & Associates, Toronto, Ontario, for the plaintiff;

Morris Rosenberg, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendant.

This action was heard on January 20-24, 2003, April 28 to May 1, 2003, January 19 and 22, 2004 and June 14-16, 2004, at Toronto, Ontario, before O'Keefe, J., of the Federal Court who delivered the following judgment on December 15, 2004.