Date: 20011217
Docket: T-1711-01
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 1387
BETWEEN:
MRS. MICHELINE CLAIRE MONFORTON
MR. NELSON PHILIP MONFORTON
Applicants
and
CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] This is a motion brought on behalf of the applicants pursuant to Rules 369 and 30(1)(b) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, for:
1. An order appointing the RCMP to supervise and enforce the decision of this ex parte motion;
2. Power to restrain/injunction
That prevents CCRA from terminating the recording and the removing of the surveillance cameras installed on October 28, 2000, at the personal residence located at 65 James Lewis Avenue in Stittsville, Ontario;
3. Power to prohibit/prohibition
(a) That prohibits CCRA to involve any additional personnel into the Monforton case, and instructing CCRA to electronically notify all employees and management in Ottawa, who are maintaining electronic files/folders, correspondence and files, to report, isolate and forward them to one designated contact name and location within the CCRA agency. Known locations:
- Ottawa Tax Services Office located at 333 Laurier Avenue West;
- Northern Ontario Region located at 2405 St. Laurent Blvd;
- Headquarters located at 25 MacArthur Road;
- Security Directorate located at 25 Nicholas Street;
(b) That the RCMP retrieve all files relating to Mrs. Micheline Claire Monforton and the Monforton case in order to secure its content and further disclosure;
4. Power to compel performance of a duty/mandamus
(a) That CCRA disclose and provide to the RCMP the relevant taxpayers information of whom is believed to be the alleged perpetrators of the criminal acts against the CCRA official, Mrs. Micheline Monforton, the family and the personal property;
(b) That the RCMP retrieve from CCRA the taxpayer account summaries, field call locations, dates of communications, actions initiated and taken for the purpose of presenting the information to the Ottawa Police for examination and investigations;
(c) That the RCMP present the information to the Ottawa Police as a neutral body for the purpose of maintaining impartial presentation of the information in order that it be aware of the relevant facts to conduct an impartial investigation of the criminal acts, which constitute offences under the Criminal Code; and
5. Power to compel performance of a duty/mandamus
That CCRA provide the employee, Mrs. Micheline Claire Monforton and family members with legal assistance pursuant to the Finance and Administration Manual - Chapter 26, sections 77, 78, 29 and 80 in order to have the notice of application/application for judicial review managed as a specially managed proceeding pursuant to Rules 384 and 385 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998.
RELEVANT FACTS
[2] The applicant Micheline Monforton is an employee of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency [herein after referred to as the CCRA].
[3] In late 1999, following a report of a fire at the Monforton residence, the applicant Micheline Monforton made a request for protection.
[4] Some protective measures were implemented including the installation of video cameras and of a security guard at the applicant's home for a period of time.
[5] An investigation was also conducted in regards to the various incidences reported by the applicant Micheline Monforton.
[6] Pursuant to the investigation, CCRA officials were in touch with the Ottawa Police who also investigated various incidences reported by the applicant Micheline Monforton.
[7] There is a policy in place regarding security matters including threats, abuse and stalking of employees.
[8] It is clear from this policy that there is interaction between the CCRA and the Police Forces which is not only contemplated but mandated as part of the policy.
[9] The CCRA retained the services of a professional security consultant, André Chartrand, to assess whether the applicant Micheline Monforton's security or that of her family was at risk due to her work with the CCRA.
[10] Based on the analysis in Mr. Chartrand's report, the CCRA concluded that the applicant Micheline Monforton and her family were not at risk due to her work at the CCRA.
[11] Pursuant to the recommendation of the consultant Mr. Chartrand, the CCRA ceased the video surveillance cameras which had been installed at the applicant's home, effective September 25, 2001 and sought the applicant's permission to enter her property in order to remove the said video cameras which are inoperative; the video cameras are the property of the CCRA.
[12] The applicants have refused to allow CCRA representatives to have access to the property for the purpose of removing the cameras.
ANALYSIS
[13] Given the quantity of different kinds of relief requested by the applicants, I will address them separately:
[14] Regarding the first relief, to issue an order appointing the RCMP to supervise and enforce the present decision, I see no reason nor any evidence that justifies the intervention of the RCMP, as the applicant has failed to provide any evidence to suggest that the respondent will not respect the terms of any order made by this Court.
[15] Regarding the request to prevent CCRA from terminating the recording, and also the removal of the surveillance cameras installed on the premises, the evidence provided by the parties show that the video cameras are no longer in operation and that recording ceased on September 25, 2001.
[16] The respondent has also mentioned that the video cameras belonged to it. I therefore have no hesitation in concluding that the respondent or its employees should be allowed to physically remove the video cameras from the applicants' property.
[17] The applicants have failed to provide any evidence that would warrant the continued recording by the video cameras.
[18] Regarding the request to prohibit CCRA to involve any additional personnel into the Monforton case, the respondent has provided evidence that the investigation into the incident reported by the applicant Micheline Monforton, is concluded. The only remaining case is the application for judicial review that was commenced by the applicants. I do not think that this Court has jurisdiction to decide which employee of the CCRA should be involved in assisting respondent's counsel in dealing with the application and any other procedural steps associated with it.
[19] Regarding the request for an order instructing CCRA to electronically notify all employees and management in Ottawa who are maintaining electronic files/folders, correspondence and files, to isolate and forward them to one designated contact name and location within the CCRA agency, the applicants failed to provide any evidence to warrant this and, in my view, the respondent is responsible for the management of its own shop, and said frankly, I do not understand from where this request comes. Nevertheless, the applicants are entitled to make such a request if they wish to have access to any information in accordance with the law and regulations in place.
[20] Concerning the request that all files relating to the applicants should be retrieved by the RCMP to secure its content and further disclosure, again, the applicants have failed to provide any evidence to indicate that any information or relevant documentation is at risk or was in any way destroyed or improperly disclosed; if the applicants have a request to make in order to have access to any particular information, they should resort to the proper channels in accordance with the law and regulations.
[21] Regarding the request for an order to force the CCRA to disclose and provide to the RCMP the relevant taxpayers information of whom the applicants believe to be alleged perpetrators of the criminal acts against the CCRA official or the applicants and their family, I have no hesitation in concluding from the material that is before the Court, that the applicant Micheline Monforton is totally aware of the limitation imposed by the Income Tax Act on the information which is personal to taxpayers and which may be disclosed by the CCRA.
[22] The evidence also demonstrates that the respondent has informed the applicants that it does not believe that they are at risk, and that further disclosure of taxpayers information would be appropriate.
[23] Regarding the request for an order that the RCMP present the information to the Ottawa Police, the applicants ought to know that the RCMP is not a party to this proceeding, and that this Court has no jurisdiction nor any valid reasons to make such an order. I agree with the respondent that if the Ottawa Police needs any information from the respondent, they would seek the information through the proper channels in accordance with the law.
[24] Regarding the last request, to provide the applicants and their family members with legal assistance, again, this Court has no jurisdiction to impose that the respondent provide such legal assistance.
[25] The evidence provided by the respondent shows that an internal policy at the CCRA allows for the provision of legal assistance to its employees in certain defined circumstances. The respondent took the position that the policy does not apply under the circumstances. My understanding is that there is a possibility for the applicants to appeal that decision or to file an application for judicial review of such a decision, if it is possible, but that this Court has no jurisdiction to force the respondent to alter that decision.
[26] Therefore, I am of the view that the applicants have failed to provide any evidence to support this motion.
O R D E R
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:
- The applicants' motion be dismissed with costs payable to the respondent;
- The respondent shall be entitled to enter the applicants' property known municipally as 65 James Lewis Avenue, Stittsville, Ontario, upon provision of 48 hours, advance notice to the applicants and that the respondent's representatives may physically remove the video surveillance cameras and retake possession of them.
Pierre Blais
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
December 17, 2001
Email this Content