Thomson v. Canada (Minister of Agriculture)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Stevenson, JJ.
• Citation: (1992), 133 N.R. 345 (SCC),JE 92-277,1992 CanLII 121 (SCC),[1992] 1 SCR 385,[1992] ACS no 13,89 DLR (4th) 218,51 FTR 267,[1992] SCJ No 13 (QL),3 Admin LR (2d) 242,133 NR 345
• Date: 13 February 1992
• Subject Matter: NATIONAL SECURITY,STATUTES,CROWN

Thomson v. Can. (1992), 133 N.R. 345 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Her Majesty The Queen, as represented by the Department of Agriculture and the Deputy Minister of Agriculture (appellant) v. Robert Thomson (respondent) and Security Intelligence Review Committee (intervenor)

(22020)

Indexed As: Thomson v. Canada (Minister of Agriculture)

Supreme Court of Canada

La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,

Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and

Stevenson, JJ.

February 13, 1992.

Summary:

The Deputy Minister of Agriculture denied Thomson security clearance for the purpose of employment as a Project Planning Officer in the International Affairs Directorate of Agriculture Canada. Thomson complained under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. A Security Intelligence Review Committee reviewed the complaint and recommended that security clearance be granted. The Deputy Minister of Agriculture again refused to grant security clearance. Thomson applied under s. 28 of the Federal Court Act to have the Deputy Minister's decision reviewed and set aside.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a judg­ment reported 84 N.R. 169, dismissed Thomson's application. The court stated that although the Deputy Minister was bound by the recommendation to grant clearance, the court lacked jurisdiction under s. 28 to review and set aside a purely administrative decision of the Deputy Minister. Thomson then applied under s. 18 of the Federal Court Act for certiorari to quash the Deputy Min­ister's decision and for mandamus to compel the granting of security clearance.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a judgment reported 21 F.T.R. 254, dismissed Thomson's application. The court held that since the Deputy Minister was not bound by the recommendation, there was no duty to act and mandamus was unavailable. The court refused to grant certiorari where the Deputy Minister properly exercised his discretion. Thomson appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a judg­ment reported 109 N.R. 281, allowed the appeal and ordered the Deputy Minister to grant security clearance. The court held that the Deputy Minister was bound by the rec­ommendation. The Deputy Minister ap-pealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting, allowed the appeal and restored the Trial Division's dismissal of the applications for certiorari and mandamus.

Crown - Topic 2202

Crown privilege or prerogative - Statutory limitations - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the prerogative power of the Crown can be abolished or limited by statute. Once a statute occupies the ground formerly occupied by the preroga­tive power, the Crown must comply with the terms of the statute" - See paragraph 19.

National Security - Topic 1205

Canadian Security Intelligence Service - Complaints - Denial of security clear­ance - Recommendation of review com­mittee - Effect of - The Deputy Minister of Agriculture denied an employee security clearance for a job - The employee com­plained under the Security Intelligence Service Act - A Security Intelligence Review Committee recommended that the clearance be granted, but the Deputy Min­ister again refused - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "recommendation" was to be given its ordinary meaning - The Committee's recommendation was advisory only; it was not binding on the Deputy Minister - The court held that the Deputy Minister properly exercised his discretion - See paragraphs 1 to 35.

Statutes - Topic 516

Interpretation - Ordinary meaning of words - [See National Security - Topic 1205 ].

Statutes - Topic 2408

Interpretation - Words and phrases - Variation within statute - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "unless the contrary is clearly indicated by the context, a word should be given the same interpre­tation or meaning wherever it appears in an Act" - See paragraph 27.

Cases Noticed:

Lee v. Attorney General of Canada, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 90; 38 N.R. 346, refd to. [para. 12].

Lee, Re, [1981] 1 F.C. 713; 31 N.R. 136 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Attorney General of Canada v. Murby - see Lee, Re.

Multiform Manufacturing Co. Ltd. et al. v. R. et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 624; 113 N.R. 373; 32 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 22].

Myer Queenstown Garden Plaza Pty. Ltd. v. City of Port Adelaide (1975), 11 S.A.S.R. 504, dist. [para. 23].

Cardinal and Oswald v. Kent Institution, Director of, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643; 63 N.R. 353, refd to. [para. 31].

Action Travail de Femmes v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1114; 76 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Cloutier, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 709; 28 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 40].

Quebec Railway, Light, Heat and Power Co. v. Vandry, [1920] A.C. 662, refd to. [para. 43].

City of Victoria v. Bishop of Vancouver Island, [1921] 2 A.C. 384, refd to. [para. 43].

Attorney General v. Prince Ernest Augustus Hanover, [1957] A.C. 436, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Sommerville, [1974] S.C.R. 387, refd to. [para. 43].

Julius v. Bishop of Oxford (1880), 5 App. Cas. 214, refd to. [para. 47].

Hands v. The Law Society of Upper Canada (1890), 17 O.A.R. 41, refd to. [para. 48].

Bridge v. The Queen, [1953] 1 S.C.R. 8, refd to. [para. 49].

Labour Relations Board of Saskatchewan v. The Queen, [1956] S.C.R. 82, refd to. [para. 50].

Cité de Côte-St-Luc v. Canada Iron Foundries Ltd., [1970] C.A. 62 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

Reference Re Constitutional Validity of Certain Sections of the Fisheries Act, 1914, [1928] 2 S.C.R. 457, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Sheldon S., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 254; 110 N.R. 321; 41 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Christ Hospital Governors, [1917] 1 K.B. 19, refd to. [para. 55].

Compagnie Immobilière BCN Ltée v. Minister of National Revenue, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 865; 25 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 58].

Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fish­eries and Food, [1968] A.C. 997 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 77].

Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Board of Commissioners of Police, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311; 23 N.R. 410; 88 D.L.R.(3d) 671, refd to. [para. 82].

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. 83].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Security Intelligence Act, S.C. 1984, c. 21, sect. 41 [para. 61]; sect. 42, sect. 52 [para. 3]; sect. 52(2) [paras. 8, 41].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, sect. 28 [para. 5].

Financial Administration Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F-10, generally [para. 13].

Official Languages Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. O-2, sect. 8(1), sect. 8(2)(d) [para. 57].

Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. P-32, generally [para. 12].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Côté, Pierre-André, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1991), pp. 221 [para. 44]; 222 [para. 47]; 243 [para. 43]; 249 [para. 68]; 324 [para. 38].

Driedger, E.A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), pp. 3 [para. 44]; 83 [para. 46]; 87 [para. 39]; 89 [para. 45]; 93 [para. 62].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (2nd Ed. 1985), p. 11 [para. 19].

Oxford English Dictionary [para. 52].

Petit Robert (1984) [para. 59].

Webster's Third New International Dic­tionary [para. 52].

Counsel:

I.G. Whitehall, Q.C., and B.S. Russell, for the appellant;

Sean T. McGee and Steven J. Welchner, for the respondent;

Simon Noël and Sylvie Roussel, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Nelligan/Power, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent;

Noël, Berthiaume, Aubry, Hull, Quebec, for the intervenor.

This appeal was heard on October 28, 1991, before La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Stevenson, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On February 13, 1992, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Cory, J. (La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin and Stevenson, JJ., concur­ring) - see paragraphs 1 to 35;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 36 to 90.