Date: 20120612
Docket: T-966-11
Citation: 2012 FC 707
Ottawa, Ontario, this 12th day of
June 2012
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice
Pinard
BETWEEN:
DERRICK HOLDENRIED
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
(Filed pursuant to section 51 of the Federal
Courts Act,
R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7)
[1]
These
reasons are filed pursuant to section 51 of the Federal Courts Act in
support of the judgment rendered on the bench, on May 9, 2012, dismissing this
application for judicial review, with costs.
[2]
On
June 10, 2011, Constable Derrick Holdenried (the “applicant”) filed the present
application for judicial review, under sections 18 and 18.1 of the Federal
Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, of Assistant Commissioner of the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Daniel Dubeau’s (the “Assistant Commissioner”)
decision recommending the applicant’s stoppage of pay and allowances pursuant
to subsection 22(3) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C. 1985,
c. R-10 (the “RCMP Act”) and the R.C.M.P. Stoppage of Pay and
Allowances Regulations, SOR/84-886 (the “Stoppage of Pay Regulations”).
* * * * * * *
*
[3]
From
May 1, 2010 to December 4, 2010, the applicant, a Royal Canadian Mounted Police
(“RCMP”) Constable, was stationed at the Burnaby detachment in British Columbia. During this time, on
multiple occasions, the applicant had taken money from inside the desk or
jacket of other RCMP members. These thefts all occurred inside the community
police station.
[4]
Around
November-December 2010, an investigation began, believing the applicant to be
conducting himself in a disgraceful manner which could bring discredit on the Force,
contrary to subsection 39(1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Regulations, SOR/88-361 (the “RCMP Regulations”). On November
8, 2010 and December 4, 2010, the applicant was caught stealing on tape.
[5]
On
December 8, 2010, the applicant received a Briefing Note informing him of a
Code of Conduct investigation and of allegations of stealing that were made
against him. The applicant was interviewed with regards to his alleged
misconduct. At this time, the applicant admitted to taking money without
consent a total of twenty to twenty-five times within the community police
station.
[6]
On
December 20, 2010, the RCMP Commanding Officer (the “Commanding Officer”) was
briefed on the allegations against the applicant and decided to suspend him
with pay. On December 22, 2010, the applicant received a Notice of
Suspension, informing him that the Commanding Officer recommended that the
applicant be suspended for his alleged misconduct, being believed to remove
money from other members within the police station, alleging four specific
incidents of disgraceful conduct contrary to subsection 39(1) of the RCMP
Regulations, specifically on November 18, 2010; December 2, 2010; December
4, 2010; and between May and November 2010. On December 23, 2010, the
Commanding Officer issued a Notice of Intent to recommend the stoppage of pay
and allowances to the applicant during his suspension.
[7]
This
Notice of Intent was received by the applicant on December 30, 2010 and
outlined the criteria for suspension without pay as “clear involvement”,
“seriousness” of the conduct and “timeliness”. These factors were met, in the
Commanding Officer’s opinion, for the applicant was caught on tape stealing,
admitted to stealing during his interview and could provide no reasonable
explanation for his conduct. Thereby, the applicant was breaching RCMP values
such as honesty, integrity, trustworthiness and incorruptibility. Thus, the
preventive measure of suspension without pay was necessary, in the Commanding
Officer’s opinion, to maintain the RCMP’s institutional credibility and
maintain public confidence. The applicant was entitled to file a response in
regard to this Notice of Intent.
[8]
On
February 2, 2011, in response, the applicant explained that the Commanding
Officer failed to consider his medical disability, which was a serious
mitigating factor against imposing a suspension without pay. Thereby, failing
to consider his disability, the Commanding Officer acted in a discriminatory
manner contrary to section 7 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C.
1985 c. H-6. The applicant also alleged that an indefinite suspension
without a finding of fault was contrary to law.
[9]
The
applicant explained that after responding to a grotesque suicide call in March
2010, he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder which influenced his
behavior, as explained by his psychologist Doctor Hancock in his medical report
dated January 27, 2011.
[10]
On
February 18, 2011, the Commanding Officer maintained his recommendation of
suspension without pay. On April 18, 2011, the Commanding Officer’s
recommendation and the supporting documents were sent for review by the
Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner considered the evidence
submitted by the Commanding Officer and the applicant, in addition to the
requirements of Part XII.5 of the RCMP Administration Manual (“the Manual”).
The requirements of the Manual being met, on May 13, 2011, the Assistant
Commissioner supported the Commanding Officer’s recommendation and recommended
the applicant’s pay and allowances be stopped; and issued an order of stoppage
of all pay and allowances effective this date pursuant to subsection 22(3) of
the RCMP Act and section 2 of the Stoppage of Pay Regulations.
* * * * * * * *
[11]
The
relevant legislation is annexed hereto for convenience.
[12]
The
present application for judicial review raises the following crucial
preliminary issue:
Should
this Court decline to hear the present application for judicial review because
the applicant did not exhaust the means of relief available to him under the RCMP
Act, not having utilized the grievance mechanisms available to him?
[13]
The
respondent argues at the outset that this Court should decline to exercise its
jurisdiction and hear the present application for judicial review because the
applicant never properly availed himself of the remedies available to him under
the grievance procedure provided for under section 31 of the RCMP Act.
This grievance process would allow the applicant to fully present his case and
seek a broader range of remedies. And if the grievance was ultimately denied,
the applicant could then seek judicial review. The respondent explains that
this Court should decline to exercise its jurisdiction where the grievance
procedure is an adequate alternative remedy, albeit not a perfect remedy. I
agree.
[14]
Actually,
in June 2011, at the same time that the applicant filed the present application
for judicial review, the applicant also filed a grievance with the decision
presently the object of this judicial review, specifically the Assistant
Commissioner’s decision suspending the applicant without pay and allowances.
While this decision has been submitted to the level I grievance adjudicator in
December 2011, a decision has yet to be rendered.
[15]
It
appears therefore that the applicant has yet to fully avail himself of the
grievance procedure afforded to him under the RCMP Act. Section 31 of
the RCMP Act, being a catch-all provision, allowed the applicant to file
a grievance against the Assistant Commissioner’s decision and could ultimately
have entitled him to a hearing before the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
External Review Committee (see sections 32 and 33 of the RCMP Act and Phillips
v. Harrison, 2000 MBCA 150 at para 21).
[16]
The
question is whether this alternative remedy is adequate (Froom v. Minister
of Justice, 2004 FCA 352 at para 12; Bruno v. Attorney General, 2006
FC 462 at para 23). As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Vaughan v.
Canada, 2005 SCC 11, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 146 at paragraph 39:
.
. . where Parliament has clearly created a scheme for dealing with labour
disputes, . . . courts should not jeopardize the comprehensive dispute
resolution process contained in the legislation by permitting routine access to
courts. While the absence of independent third-party adjudication may in
certain circumstances impact on the court’s exercise of its residual discretion
(as in the whistle-blower cases) the general rule of deference in matters
arising out of labour relations should prevail.
[17]
The
applicant claims that this grievance mechanism is inadequate and his
application for judicial review should proceed. Firstly, he claims adjudication
can take many years, which he argues is a factor to consider in determining
whether this Court should nonetheless hear the application for judicial review,
relying on Royal Canadian Mounted Police v. Attorney General, 2007 FC
564, 313 F.T.R. 183 [RCMP]. However, in this case, while Justice Danièle
Tremblay-Lamer did state that the fact that the length of the grievance process
was a relevant factor, she specified that such a process is not “suitable for
resolving a discrete preliminary dispute over jurisdiction” (at para 28). We
are not dealing with a preliminary dispute over jurisdiction and thus Justice
Tremblay-Lamer’s comments are of limited utility.
[18]
The
applicant further claims that the grievance mechanism is inadequate because he
is raising jurisdictional arguments which are beyond the Assistant
Commissioner’s expertise, relying again on the RCMP case, above. Once
again, this case can be distinguished, seeing as it was not in the same
context. The applicant also relies on Secord v. Saint John (City) Board of
Police Commissioners, 2006 NBQB 65 [Secord] to support his position
that where a jurisdictional issue is raised, this Court should exercise its
discretion and hear the judicial review, despite the availability of alternative
grievance mechanisms available. While this is true, the Court in Secord
went on to specify that the Court should go on to consider other relevant
factors, “including an examination of the adequate alternate remedy and the
nature of the question to determine whether the inconvenience of proceeding
through the statutorily prescribed scheme outweighs the benefits of such” (at
para 43). Thus, the existence of a jurisdictional issue being raised in the
present application for judicial review, which the applicant argues is not a
true question, is not determinative of whether or not this Court should
exercise its discretion.
[19]
It
is only in
exceptional cases that courts should exercise their discretion, despite the
existence of a comprehensive statutory grievance scheme. For example, where the
integrity of the grievance procedure has been compromised, courts should
exercise their discretion and hear the application for judicial review (Lebrasseur
v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2007 FCA 330 at para 18). However, this is
not such a case where the integrity of the grievance process has been
compromised. The grievance process outlined in Part III of the RCMP Act
has been recognized as a comprehensive scheme providing effective redress in
cases other than those concerning harassment (Marshall v. Attorney General
of Canada, 2008 SKQB 113 at para 11; The Attorney General of Canada v.
Smith, 2007 NBCA 58 at para 3; Merrifield v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009
ONCA 127 at para 10). As such, “where a grievance procedure, as prescribed
in a statute, constitutes an adequate alternate remedy, it ought to be
completely followed before turning to the Courts” (Sauve v. Her Majesty the
Queen (1998), 157 F.T.R. 91 at para 20).
[20]
The grievance
process against decisions concerning RCMP stoppage of pay and allowances is
well described in the affidavit of Kathleen Li, Case Manager/Grievance Reviewer
with the RCMP of the City of Vancouver, British Columbia:
4. Grievances
concerning suspensions without pay and allowances (“SWOP”) pursuant to the RCMP
Stoppage of Pay and Allowances Regulations follow a process that is
distinct from the process outlined above. Such grievances are prioritized by
the Pacific Region Office for Co-ordination of Grievances. Phase I of the usual
grievance process is not mandatory and grievances of SWOP decisions generally
proceed directly to Phase II. The Level I adjudicator for SWOP grievances is a
Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP.
5. If
a SWOP grievance is denied by the Level I adjudicator, the grievor may appeal
to the second and final level in the grievance process, the Commissioner, who,
before considering the grievance, will refer the grievance to the External
Review Committee pursuant to section 33(1) of the RCMP Act.
6. If
a SWOP grievance is upheld by the Level I adjudicator and the grievor is
satisfied with the remedy, the file is concluded at that point. It is not
referred to the External Review Committee or the Commissioner.
[21]
In
her affidavit, Ms. Li further describes the chronology of the steps taken to
date in the applicant’s grievance and concludes as follows:
8. The
Level I Adjudicator has yet to make a decision on the Grievance. While I cannot
state when the Adjudicator will render her decision, based on my experience,
Mr. Holdenried’s Grievance has proceeded efficiently.
[22]
I am
satisfied therefore, that the grievance procedure afforded to the applicant is
an adequate alternative remedy which the applicant has yet to fully avail
himself of, before coming to this Court as he did.
* * * * * * * *
[23]
In the
circumstances, the application for judicial review is premature and must be
dismissed, with costs.
JUDGMENT
The application for judicial
review is dismissed, with costs.
“Yvon
Pinard”
ANNEX
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-10:
|
5. (1) The Governor in Council
may appoint an officer, to be known as the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police, who, under the direction of the Minister, has the control and
management of the Force and all matters connected therewith.
(2) The Commissioner may delegate to
any member any of the Commissioner’s powers, duties or functions under this
Act, except the power to delegate under this subsection, the power to make
rules under this Act and the powers, duties or functions under section 32 (in
relation to any type of grievance prescribed pursuant to subsection 33(4)),
subsections 42(4) and 43(1), section 45.16, subsection 45.19(5), section
45.26 and subsections 45.46(1) and (2).
12.1 Every member who has
contravened, is found contravening or is suspected of contravening the Code
of Conduct or an Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province may be
suspended from duty by the Commissioner.
22. (3) The Treasury Board may
make regulations respecting the stoppage of pay and allowances of members who
are suspended from duty.
25. (1) There is hereby
established a committee, to be known as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
External Review Committee, consisting of a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman and not
more than three other members, to be appointed by order of the Governor in
Council.
(5) No
member of the Force is eligible to be appointed or to continue as a member of
the Committee.
31. (1) Subject to subsections
(2) and (3), where any member is aggrieved by any decision, act or omission
in the administration of the affairs of the Force in respect of which no
other process for redress is provided by this Act, the regulations or the
Commissioner’s standing orders, the member is entitled to present the
grievance in writing at each of the levels, up to and including the final
level, in the grievance process provided for by this Part.
32. (1) The Commissioner
constitutes the final level in the grievance process and the Commissioner’s decision in respect of any grievance is final and binding and, except
for judicial review under the Federal Courts Act, is not subject
to appeal to or review by any court.
33. (1) Before
the Commissioner considers a grievance of a type prescribed pursuant to
subsection (4), the Commissioner shall refer the grievance to the Committee.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a
member presenting a grievance to the Commissioner may request the
Commissioner not to refer the grievance to the Committee and, on such a
request, the Commissioner may either not refer the grievance to the Committee
or, if the Commissioner considers that a reference to the Committee is
appropriate notwithstanding the request, refer the grievance to the
Committee.
(3) Where the Commissioner refers a
grievance to the Committee pursuant to this section, the Commissioner shall
furnish the Committee Chairman with a copy of
(a) the written submissions made at each
level in the grievance process by the member presenting the grievance;
(b) the decisions rendered at each level in
the grievance process in respect of the grievance; and
(c) the written or documentary information
under the control of the Force and relevant to the grievance.
(4) The Governor in Council may make regulations
prescribing for the purposes of subsection (1) the types of grievances that
are to be referred to the Committee.
34. (1) The Committee Chairman
shall review every grievance referred to the Committee pursuant to section
33.
40. (1) Where it appears to an officer or to a
member in command of a detachment that a member under the command of the
officer or member has contravened the Code of Conduct, the officer or member
shall make or cause to be made such investigation as the officer or member
considers necessary to enable the officer or member to determine whether that
member has contravened or is contravening the Code of Conduct.
(2) In any investigation under subsection (1), no
member shall be excused from answering any question relating to the matter
being investigated when required to do so by the officer or other member
conducting the investigation on the ground that the answer to the question
may tend to criminate the member or subject the member to any proceeding or
penalty.
(3) No answer or statement made in response to a question
described in subsection (2) shall be used or receivable in any criminal,
civil or administrative proceedings, other than a hearing under section 45.1
into an allegation that with intent to mislead the member gave the answer or
statement knowing it to be false.
41. (1) Subject to this section, the following
informal disciplinary action may be taken in respect of a contravention of
the Code of Conduct, namely,
(a) counselling;
(b) recommendation for special training;
(c) recommendation for professional
counselling;
(d) recommendation for transfer;
(e) direction to work under close
supervision;
(f) subject to such conditions as the
Commissioner may, by rule, prescribe, forfeiture of regular time off for any
period not exceeding one work day; and
(g) reprimand.
42. (1) Any
member against whom informal disciplinary action referred to in any of
paragraphs 41(1)(e) to (g) is taken may appeal that action
at each of the levels, up to and including the final level, in the appeal
process provided for by this section.
43. (1) Subject
to subsections (7) and (8), where it appears to an appropriate officer that a
member has contravened the Code of Conduct and the appropriate officer is of
the opinion that, having regard to the gravity of the contravention and to
the surrounding circumstances, informal disciplinary action under section 41
would not be sufficient if the contravention were established, the
appropriate officer shall initiate a hearing into the alleged contravention
and notify the officer designated by the Commissioner for the purposes of
this section of that decision.
45.12 (1) After
considering the evidence submitted at the hearing, the adjudication board
shall decide whether or not each allegation of contravention of the Code of
Conduct contained in the notice of the hearing is established on a balance of
probabilities.
(3) Where an adjudication board
decides that an allegation of contravention of the Code of Conduct by a
member is established, the board shall impose any one or more of the
following sanctions on the member, namely,
(a) recommendation for dismissal from
the Force, if the member is an officer, or dismissal from the Force, if the
member is not an officer;
(b) direction to resign from the Force
and, in default of resigning within fourteen days after being directed to do
so, recommendation for dismissal from the Force, if the member is an officer,
or dismissal from the Force, if the member is not an officer;
(c) recommendation for demotion, if the
member is an officer, or demotion, if the member is not an officer; or
(d) forfeiture of pay for a period not
exceeding ten work days.
|
5. (1) Le gouverneur
en conseil peut nommer un officier, appelé commissaire de la Gendarmerie
royale du Canada, qui, sous la direction du ministre, a pleine autorité sur
la Gendarmerie et tout ce qui s’y rapporte.
(2)
Le commissaire peut déléguer à tout membre les pouvoirs ou fonctions que lui
attribue la présente loi, à l’exception du pouvoir de délégation que lui
accorde le présent paragraphe, du pouvoir que lui accorde la présente loi
d’établir des règles et des pouvoirs et fonctions visés à l’article 32
(relativement à toute catégorie de griefs visée dans un règlement pris en
application du paragraphe 33(4)), aux paragraphes 42(4) et 43(1), à l’article
45.16, au paragraphe 45.19(5), à l’article 45.26 et aux paragraphes 45.46(1)
et (2).
12.1 Le commissaire peut suspendre tout
membre qui a contrevenu, contrevient ou qui est soupçonné de contrevenir au
code de déontologie ou à une loi fédérale ou provinciale.
22. (3) Le Conseil du Trésor peut prendre
des règlements régissant la cessation de la solde et des indemnités des
membres suspendus de leurs fonctions.
25. (1) Est constitué le Comité externe
d’examen de la Gendarmerie royale du Canada, composé d’au plus cinq membres,
dont le président et un vice-président, nommés par décret du gouverneur en
conseil.
(5)
Un membre de la Gendarmerie ne peut faire partie du Comité.
31. (1) Sous réserve des paragraphes (2) et
(3), un membre à qui une décision, un acte ou une omission liés à la gestion
des affaires de la Gendarmerie causent un préjudice peut présenter son grief
par écrit à chacun des niveaux que prévoit la procédure applicable aux griefs
prévue à la présente partie dans le cas où la présente loi, ses règlements ou
les consignes du commissaire ne prévoient aucune autre procédure pour
corriger ce préjudice.
32. (1) Le commissaire constitue le dernier
niveau de la procédure applicable aux griefs; sa décision est définitive et
exécutoire et, sous réserve du contrôle judiciaire prévu par la Loi sur
les Cours fédérales, n’est pas susceptible d’appel ou de révision en
justice.
33. (1) Avant d’étudier un grief d’une
catégorie visée par règlement pris en vertu du paragraphe (4), le commissaire
le renvoie devant le Comité.
(2)
Par dérogation au paragraphe (1), le membre qui présente un grief au
commissaire peut lui demander de ne pas le renvoyer devant le Comité; le
commissaire peut accéder à cette demande, ou la rejeter s’il estime plus
indiqué un renvoi devant le Comité.
(3)
En cas de renvoi d’un grief devant le Comité conformément au présent article,
le commissaire transmet au président du Comité une copie :
a) des argumentations écrites faites à
chaque niveau de la procédure applicable aux griefs par le membre qui
présente le grief;
b) des décisions rendues à chaque niveau
de cette procédure;
c) de la documentation pertinente placée
sous la responsabilité de la Gendarmerie.
(4)
Le gouverneur en conseil peut, par règlement, prescrire, pour l’application
du paragraphe (1), les catégories de griefs qui doivent faire l’objet d’un
renvoi devant le Comité.
34. (1) Le président du Comité
examine tous les griefs qui sont renvoyés devant le Comité conformément à
l’article 33.
40. (1) Lorsqu’il apparaît à un
officier ou à un membre commandant un détachement qu’un membre sous ses
ordres a contrevenu au code de déontologie, il tient ou fait tenir l’enquête
qu’il estime nécessaire pour lui permettre d’établir s’il y a réellement
contravention.
(2)
Au cours d’une enquête tenue en vertu du paragraphe (1), un membre n’est pas
dispensé de répondre aux questions portant sur l’objet de l’enquête lorsque
l’officier ou l’autre membre menant l’enquête l’exigent, au motif que sa
réponse peut l’incriminer ou l’exposer à des poursuites ou à une peine.
(3)
Les réponses ou déclarations faites à la suite des questions visées au
paragraphe (2) ne peuvent être utilisées ni ne sont recevables dans des
poursuites pénales, civiles ou administratives sauf au cours d’une audience
tenue en vertu de l’article 45.1 portant sur l’allégation selon laquelle le
membre a fait une telle réponse ou déclaration, qu’il savait fausse, dans
l’intention de tromper.
41. (1) Sous réserve des autres dispositions
du présent article, peuvent être imposées, pour une contravention au code de
déontologie, les mesures disciplinaires simples suivantes :
a) conseiller le contrevenant;
b) recommander de lui faire suivre une
formation spéciale;
c) recommander de le faire bénéficier
des conseils d’un spécialiste;
d) recommander sa mutation;
e) le soumettre à une stricte
surveillance pendant son travail;
f) le priver de son congé hebdomadaire
pour une période ne dépassant pas un jour de travail, sous réserve des conditions
que peut prescrire le commissaire par règle;
g) lui donner un avertissement.
42. (1) Tout membre soumis à une
mesure disciplinaire simple visée aux alinéas 41(1)e) à g)
peut interjeter appel de la mesure à chacun des niveaux de la procédure
d’appel prévue au présent article.
43. (1) Sous réserve des paragraphes
(7) et (8), lorsqu’il apparaît à un officier compétent qu’un membre a
contrevenu au code de déontologie et qu’eu égard à la gravité de la
contravention et aux circonstances, les mesures disciplinaires simples visées
à l’article 41 ne seraient pas suffisantes si la contravention était établie,
il convoque une audience pour enquêter sur la contravention présumée et fait
part de sa décision à l’officier désigné par le commissaire pour l’application
du présent article.
45.12 (1) Le comité d’arbitrage décide
si les éléments de preuve produits à l’audience établissent selon la
prépondérance des probabilités chacune des contraventions alléguées au code
de déontologie énoncées dans l’avis d’audience.
(3)
Si le comité d’arbitrage décide qu’un membre a contrevenu au code de
déontologie, il lui impose une ou plusieurs des peines suivantes :
a) recommander que le membre soit
congédié de la Gendarmerie, s’il est officier, ou, s’il ne l’est pas, le
congédier de la Gendarmerie;
b) ordonner au membre de démissionner de
la Gendarmerie, et si ce dernier ne s’exécute pas dans les quatorze jours
suivants, prendre à son égard la mesure visée à l’alinéa a);
c) recommander la rétrogradation du
membre, s’il est officier, ou, s’il ne l’est pas, le rétrograder;
d) imposer la confiscation de la solde
pour une période maximale de dix jours de travail.
|
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Regulations, 1988,
SOR/88-361:
|
36.
For the purposes of subsection 33(4) of
the Act, the types of grievances that are to be referred to the External
Review Committee are grievances relating to
(a) the Force’s interpretation and
application of government policies that apply to government departments and
that have been made to apply to members;
(b) the stoppage of the pay and allowances of members
made pursuant to subsection 22(3) of the Act;
(c) the Force’s interpretation and application of the Isolated
Posts Directive;
(d) the Force’s interpretation and application of the R.C.M.P.
Relocation Directive; and
(e) administrative discharge for grounds specified in
paragraph 19(a), (f) or (i).
37. Sections 38 to 58.7 constitute the Code of Conduct
governing the conduct of members.
39. (1) A
member shall not engage in any disgraceful or disorderly act or conduct that
could bring discredit on the Force.
(2) Without restricting the generality of the
foregoing, an act or a conduct of a member is a disgraceful act or conduct
where the act or conduct
(a) is prejudicial to the impartial performance of the member’s
duties; or
(b) results in a finding that the member
is guilty of an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary
conviction under an Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province.
|
36. Pour l’application du
paragraphe 33(4) de la Loi, les catégories de griefs qui doivent faire
l’objet d’un renvoi devant le Comité externe d’examen sont les suivants :
a) les griefs relatifs à l’interprétation et à l’application, par la
Gendarmerie, des politiques gouvernementales visant les ministères qui ont
été étendues aux membres;
b) les griefs relatifs à la cessation, en application du paragraphe
22(3) de la Loi, de la solde et des allocations des membres;
c) les griefs relatifs à l’interprétation et à l’application, par la
Gendarmerie, de la Directive sur les postes isolés;
d) les griefs relatifs à l’interprétation et à l’application, par la
Gendarmerie, de la Directive de la Gendarmerie sur la réinstallation;
e) les griefs relatifs au renvoi par mesure administrative pour les
motifs visés aux alinéas 19a), f) ou i).
37. Les articles 38
à 58.7 constituent le code de déontologie régissant la conduite des membres.
39. (1) Le membre ne
peut agir ni se comporter d’une façon scandaleuse ou désordonnée qui jetterait
le discrédit sur la Gendarmerie.
(2) Le membre agit ou se
comporte de façon scandaleuse lorsque, notamment :
a) ses actes ou son comportement l’empêchent de remplir ses fonctions
avec impartialité;
b) à cause de ses actes ou de son comportement, il est trouvé coupable
d’un acte criminel ou d’une infraction punissable par procédure sommaire
tombant sous le coup d’une loi fédérale ou provinciale.
|
R.C.M.P. Stoppage of Pay and Allowances Regulations, SOR/84-886:
|
The Treasury Board, on the recommendation
of the Solicitor General, pursuant to subsection 22(3) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, hereby makes the annexed Regulations
respecting the stoppage of pay and allowances of members of the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police who are suspended from duty.
2. The Commissioner, a Deputy Commissioner
or an Assistant Commissioner may order the stoppage of pay and allowances of
a member who is suspended from duty pursuant to section 13.1 of the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police Act.
|
Sur la recommandation
du Solliciteur général et conformément au paragraphe 22(3) de la Loi sur
la Gendarmerie royale du Canada, le Conseil du Trésor édicte par la
présente le Règlement ci-joint relatif à la cessation de la solde et des
allocations des membres de la Gendarmerie royale du Canada suspendus de leurs
fonctions.
2. Le Commissaire, un
sous-commissaire ou un commissaire adjoint peut ordonner la cessation du
versement de la solde et des allocations d’un membre qui est suspendu de ses
fonctions en vertu de l’article 13.1 de la Loi sur la Gendarmerie royale
du Canada.
|
Canadian
Human Rights Act,
R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6:
|
3. (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of
discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age,
sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and
conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.
7. It is a discriminatory practice,
directly or indirectly,
(a) to refuse to employ or continue to employ any individual,
or
(b) in the course of
employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee, on a
prohibited ground of discrimination.
|
3. (1) Pour
l’application de la présente loi, les motifs de distinction illicite sont
ceux qui sont fondés sur la race, l’origine nationale ou ethnique, la
couleur, la religion, l’âge, le sexe, l’orientation sexuelle, l’état
matrimonial, la situation de famille, l’état de personne graciée ou la
déficience.
7. Constitue un
acte discriminatoire, s’il est fondé sur un motif de distinction illicite, le
fait, par des moyens directs ou indirects :
a) de refuser d’employer ou de
continuer d’employer un individu;
b) de le
défavoriser en cours d’emploi.
|
Federal
Courts Act,
R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7:
|
18.1 (1) An application
for judicial review may be made by the Attorney General of Canada or by
anyone directly affected by the matter in respect of which relief is sought.
(2) An application for judicial review in
respect of a decision or an order of a federal board, commission or other
tribunal shall be made within 30 days after the time the decision or order
was first communicated by the federal board, commission or other tribunal to
the office of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada or to the party directly
affected by it, or within any further time that a judge of the Federal Court
may fix or allow before or after the end of those 30 days.
(3) On an application for judicial review, the
Federal Court may
(a) order a federal board,
commission or other tribunal to do any act or thing it has unlawfully failed
or refused to do or has unreasonably delayed in doing; or
(b) declare invalid or unlawful, or
quash, set aside or set aside and refer back for determination in accordance
with such directions as it considers to be appropriate, prohibit or restrain,
a decision, order, act or proceeding of a federal board, commission or other
tribunal.
(4) The Federal Court may grant relief under
subsection (3) if it is satisfied that the federal board, commission or other
tribunal
(a) acted without jurisdiction,
acted beyond its jurisdiction or refused to exercise its jurisdiction;
(b) failed to observe a principle
of natural justice, procedural fairness or other procedure that it was
required by law to observe;
(c) erred in law in making a
decision or an order, whether or not the error appears on the face of the
record;
(d) based its decision or order on
an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner
or without regard for the material before it;
(e) acted, or failed to act, by reasons of
fraud or perjured evidence; or
(f) acted in any other way that was
contrary to law.
|
18.1
(1) Une demande de
contrôle judiciaire peut être présentée par le procureur général du Canada ou
par quiconque est directement touché par l’objet de la demande.
(2)
Les demandes de contrôle judiciaire sont à présenter dans les trente jours
qui suivent la première communication, par l’office fédéral, de sa décision
ou de son ordonnance au bureau du sous-procureur général du Canada ou à la
partie concernée, ou dans le délai supplémentaire qu’un juge de la Cour
fédérale peut, avant ou après l’expiration de ces trente jours, fixer ou
accorder.
(3)
Sur présentation d’une demande de contrôle judiciaire, la Cour fédérale
peut :
a) ordonner à l’office
fédéral en cause d’accomplir tout acte qu’il a illégalement omis ou refusé
d’accomplir ou dont il a retardé l’exécution de manière déraisonnable;
b) déclarer nul ou illégal, ou annuler, ou
infirmer et renvoyer pour jugement conformément aux instructions qu’elle
estime appropriées, ou prohiber ou encore restreindre toute décision,
ordonnance, procédure ou tout autre acte de l’office fédéral.
(4) Les mesures prévues au paragraphe (3) sont prises si
la Cour fédérale est convaincue que l’office fédéral, selon le cas :
a) a agi sans compétence, outrepassé celle-ci ou refusé de l’exercer;
b) n’a pas observé un principe de
justice naturelle ou d’équité procédurale ou toute autre procédure qu’il
était légalement tenu de respecter;
c) a rendu une décision ou une
ordonnance entachée d’une erreur de droit, que celle-ci soit manifeste ou non
au vu du dossier;
d) a rendu une décision ou une
ordonnance fondée sur une conclusion de fait erronée, tirée de façon abusive
ou arbitraire ou sans tenir compte des éléments dont il dispose;
e) a agi ou omis d’agir en raison
d’une fraude ou de faux témoignages;
f) a agi de toute autre façon
contraire à la loi.
|
Email this Content