Date: 20070425
Docket: T-893-06
Citation: 2007 FC 435
Ottawa,
Ontario, the 25th
day of April 2007
Present:
The Honourable Mr. Justice Beaudry
BETWEEN:
MICHELINE
LAVOIE
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This is
an application for judicial review under section 18.1 of the Federal Courts
Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, brought against a decision of Guy Morgan, Senior
Program Manager, Intelligence Directorate, Security and Emergency Preparedness
Branch, Safety and Security Group, Transport Canada (the respondent), who by
decision dated March 31,2006, cancelled the applicant’s transportation security
clearance at Pierre E. Trudeau International Airport pursuant to paragraph I.4(d)
of the Transportation Security Clearance Program (the Program).
I. Issue
[2]
Is the
decision patently unreasonable?
[3]
For the
following reasons, this question must be answered in the negative. Accordingly,
the application will be dismissed.
II. Facts
[4]
The
applicant worked for more than 20 years as flight attendant with Air Canada. She held a transportation
security clearance (the clearance) since 1985. On August 19, 2002, she obtained
a renewal for Pierre
E. Trudeau International Airport.
[5]
However,
on October 6,
2005, this
clearance was suspended by her employer and by Transport Canada because of criminal charges
brought against her. She was charged twice with fraud of more than $5,000: once
for acts committed between April and June 2003, as well as for having impersonated
an officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to defraud a fish market
of more than $40,000; and subsequently for offences committed in September 2003
concerning an alleged theft of home furnishings at Ameublement Fly.
[6]
On
November 24, 2005, Transport Canada advised the applicant that
her file would be considered by the Transportation Security Clearance Advisory
Body (Advisory Body) for the purpose of making a recommendation to the Minister
of Transport (Minister) with regard to her security clearance. The applicant
was asked to provide any additional information before the recommendation was
made.
[7]
From
January to March 2006, the applicant was in contact with Transport Canada and sent additional
information mentioning, among other things, cancer and a divorce which drove
her to commit crimes. In February 2006, she was given a conditional discharge.
[8]
In spite
of the applicant’s submissions, and after having studied all the evidence on
record, the Advisory Body recommended to the Minister that her security clearance
be cancelled. Because of her criminal past, the applicant was considered to be
a person who may be prone or induced to unlawfully interfere with civil
aviation or who may incite or assist any other person in committing unlawful
interference with civil aviation (paragraph I.4.(d) of the Program).
[9]
The
Minister adopted this recommendation, and the decision was sent to the
applicant on March
31, 2006, but
she only received it around April 25, 2006, because of a change of address.
This decision is the subject of the application for judicial review in this
case.
III. Challenged
Decision
[10]
The
decision reads as follows:
[translation]
Dear Madam:
This letter is in answer to
your transportation security clearance application made to the Pierre E. Trudeau International Airport on July 24, 2002. Under section 1.5 of the
Transportation Security Clearance Program, we hereby advise you that the
Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has
cancelled your security clearance on the basis of the following recommendation
of the Advisory Body:
“The Advisory Body has unanimously
decided to recommend cancellation of this security clearance pursuant to paragraph
I.4.(d) of the Transportation Security Clearance Program.”
You may apply for a review of
this decision before the Federal Court of Canada (FCC) within thirty (30) days
of the receipt of this letter.
If you would like to discuss
the matter further, you may contact Francine Massicotte at 613-991-6842.
Sincerely,
Guy A. Morgan
Senior Program Manager
Intelligence Directorate
IV. Relevant statutory
provisions
[11]
The
relevant sections of the Aeronautics Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-2 (the Act)
provide as follows:
|
Delegation
by Minister
4.3
(1) The
Minister may authorize any person or class of persons to exercise or perform,
subject to any restrictions or conditions that the Minister may specify, any
of the powers, duties or functions of the Minister under this Part, other
than the power to make a regulation, an order, a security measure or an
emergency direction.
Exception
(1.1)
Despite
subsection (1), the Minister may authorize any person or class of persons to
make an order, a security measure or an emergency direction if a provision of
this Part specifically authorizes the Minister to do so.
Ministerial
orders
(2) The Governor in Council may
by regulation authorize the Minister to make orders with respect to any
matter in respect of which regulations of the Governor in Council under this
Part may be made.
Deputy
may be authorized to make orders
(3)
The Minister
may authorize his deputy to make orders with respect to the matters referred
to in paragraph 4.9(l).
. .
.
Security
Clearances
Granting,
suspending, etc.
4.8 The Minister may, for the
purposes of this Act, grant or refuse to grant a security clearance to any
person or suspend or cancel a security clearance.
|
Autorisation
ministérielle
4.3
(1) Le
ministre peut autoriser toute personne, individuellement ou au titre de son
appartenance à telle catégorie de personnes, à exercer, sous réserve des
restrictions et conditions qu'il précise, les pouvoirs et fonctions que la
présente partie lui confère, sauf le pouvoir de prendre des règlements,
arrêtés, mesures de sûreté ou directives d'urgence.
Réserve
(1.1) Malgré le paragraphe (1),
le ministre peut autoriser toute personne, individuellement ou au titre de
son appartenance à telle catégorie de personnes, à prendre des arrêtés,
mesures de sûreté ou directives d'urgence s'il y est expressément autorisé
par une disposition de la présente partie.
Arrêtés
ministériels
(2)
Le ministre
peut, lorsque le gouverneur en conseil l’y autorise par règlement, prendre
des arrêtés en toute matière que ce dernier peut régir par règlement au titre
de la présente partie.
Subdélégation
(3)
Le ministre
peut autoriser le sous-ministre à prendre des arrêtés dans les domaines
mentionnés à l’alinéa 4.9 l).
[…]
Habilitations
de sécurité
Délivrance,
refus, etc.
4.8 Le ministre peut, pour
l'application de la présente loi, accorder, refuser, suspendre ou annuler une
habilitation de sécurité.
|
[12]
The
objective of the program and the Minister’s authority are described as follows:
|
OBJECTIVE
I.4
The
objective of this Program is to prevent the uncontrolled entry into a
restricted area of a listed airport by any individual who
. .
.
(d)
the Minister reasonably believes, on a balance of probabilities, may be prone
or induced to
(i)
commit an act that may unlawfully interfere with civil aviation; or
ii)
assist or abet any person to commit an act that may unlawfully interfere with
civil aviation.
|
OBJECTIF
I.4
L’objectif
de ce programme est de prévenir l’entrée non contrôlée dans les zones
réglementées d’un aéroport énuméré dans le cas de toute personne:
[.
. .]
d)
qui, selon le ministre et les probabilités, est sujette ou peut être incitée
à:
i)
commettre un acte d’intervention illicite pour l’aviation civile; ou
ii)
aider ou à inciter toute autre personne à commettre un acte d’intervention
illicite pour l’aviation civile.
|
[13]
To ensure
that this objective is met, the Program specifies several standards and factors
to be taken into consideration when a security clearance is granted, refused or
cancelled:
|
CLEARANCES
II.19
1.
The following checks shall be conducted for the purpose of granting a
clearance:
(a)
a criminal records check;
(b)
a check of the relevant files of law enforcement agencies, including
intelligence gathered for law enforcement purposes; and
(c)
a CSIS indices check.
2.
The following checks may be conducted for the purpose of granting a
clearance:
(a)
a credit bureau check;
(b)
a check of the applicant's immigration and citizenship status; and
(c)
a security assessment by CSIS if necessary.
3.
No application shall be processed unless the applicant has submitted all
information required by the Director of Security Screening Programs.
. .
.
CANCELLATION
OR REFUSAL
II.35
1.
The Advisory Body may recommend to the Minister the refusal or cancellation
of a clearance to any individual if the Advisory Body has determined that the
individual’s presence in the restricted area of a listed airport would be
inconsistent with the aim and objective of this Program.
2.
In making the determination referred to in subsection (1), the Advisory Body
may consider any factor that is relevant, including whether the individual:
(a)
has been convicted or otherwise found guilty in Canada or elsewhere of an offence including,
but not limited to:
(i)
any indictable offence punishable by imprisonment for 10 years or more,
(ii)
trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking or exporting or
importing under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act,
(iii)
any offences contained in Part VII
of the Criminal Code - Disorderly Houses, Gaming and Betting,
(iv)
any contravention of a provision set out in section 160 of the Customs Act,
(v)
any offences under the Official Secrets Act; or
(vi)
any offences under Part III of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act;
3.
has a bad credit record and is employed in a position of trust; or
4.
is likely to become involved in activities directed toward or in support of
the threat or use of acts of serious violence against property or persons.
|
HABILITATIONS
II.19
1.
Les vérifications suivantes auront lieu dans le but d’accorder une
habilitation:
a)
une vérification des dossiers criminels;
b)
une vérification des dossiers pertinents des organismes d'application de la
loi, y compris des renseignements recueillis dans le cadre de l'application
de la loi;
c)
une vérification des fichiers du SCRS.
2.
Les vérifications suivantes pourraient avoir lieu dans le but d'accorder une
habilitation :
a)
une vérification auprès du Bureau de crédit ;
b)
une vérification du statut d'immigration et de citoyenneté du demandeur ; et
c)
une évaluation sécuritaire par le SCRS s'il y a lieu.
3.
Aucune demande ne sera traitée à moins que le candidat ne présente tous les
renseignements requis par le Directeur, programmes de filtrage de sécurité.
[…]
ANNULATION
OU REFUS
II.35
1.
L'Organisme consultatif peut recommander au ministre de refuser ou d'annuler
l’habilitation d’une personne s’il est déterminé que la présence de ladite
personne dans la zone réglementée d’un aéroport énuméré est contraire aux
buts et objectifs du présent programme.
2.
Au moment de faire la détermination citée au sous-alinéa (1), l'Organisme
consultatif peut considérer tout facteur pertinent, y compris:
a)
si la personne a été condamnée ou autrement trouvé coupable au Canada ou à l’étranger pour les
infractions suivantes:
i)
tout acte criminel sujet à une peine d’emprisonnement de 10 ans ou plus;
ii)
le trafic, la possession dans le but d’en faire le trafic, ou l’exportation
ou l’importation dans le cadre de la Loi sur les drogues et substances
contrôlées;
iii)
tout acte criminel cité dans la partie VII du Code criminel intitulée
«Maison de désordre, jeux et paris»;
iv)
tout acte contrevenant à une disposition de l’article 160 de la Loi sur
les douanes;
v)
tout acte stipulé dans la Loi sur les secrets officiels; ou
vi)
tout acte stipulé dans la partie III de la Loi sur l’immigration et la
protection des réfugiés.
3.
si elle possède une mauvaise réputation en matière de crédit et qu’elle
occupe un poste de confiance; ou
4.
qu’il est probable qu’elle participe à des activités directes ou en appui à
une menace ou qu’elle se livre à des actes de violence sérieuse contre la
propriété ou des personnes.
|
V. Analysis
Standard
of review
[14]
First, it
must be determined which standard of review applies, based on an analysis of
the four factors set out in Dr Q v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of
British Columbia, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226.
(i) Privative clause/right
of appeal
[15]
The Act
does not contain a privative clause or provide for a right of appeal.
Therefore, this factor is neutral.
(ii) The expertise of
the tribunal
[16]
Under
subsection 4.3(1) of the Act, management of the Security Clearance Program is
entrusted to the Director of Intelligence, Transport Canada (the Director). The Director reviews
applications and carries out security checks: for example, a criminal record
check with the RCMP. The Director verifies if there is a criminal record, if
charges are pending, if arrest warrants have been issued and if the person in
question has contacts with criminal or terrorist organizations.
[17]
The
Director is assisted by the Advisory Body, and together they grant security
clearances for access to restricted areas. The Advisory Body is made up of five
persons: the Director of Intelligence, Transport Canada; the Director of Intelligence, Canada
Border Services Agency (CBSA) (Vice-President); the Director of the Security
Screenings Program (Secretary); legal counsel; and a Transport Canada security
inspector. The work is performed by professionals who have experience and
special skills in the following areas: security, including security of
aircraft, airports, airport installations, the general public, passengers or
aircraft crews. This factor commands a high level of deference.
(iii) Purpose of the
legislation
[18]
The
purpose of the legislation is to ensure security for civil aviation and to
protect the public. The Director and the Advisory Body must assess the evidence
and analyze both public documents and those submitted by the person concerned.
This factor also commands a high level of deference.
(iv) Nature
of the question
[19]
The question
here is whether or not the risk assessment with regard to the applicant’s conduct
is reasonable. This is within the expertise of the Minister, who has discretion
in applying the program. This factor gives rise to a high level of deference.
[20]
As a
result of this analysis, I conclude that the applicable standard of review is
that of patent unreasonableness. Mr. Justice von Finckenstein reached the same
conclusion in Singh v. Canada (Attorney General), 2006 FC 802, [2006] F.C.J. No. 1109
(C.F.). I have a slightly different point of view concerning the first factor.
Accordingly, to succeed, the applicant must show that the decision is tainted
by an irrational error.
[21]
Having
considered the applicant’s arguments, the evidence on record, and the unanimous
recommendation of the Advisory Body, I am satisfied that the decision is not
patently unreasonable. The issue is not whether I agree or not with the
decision made, but whether the decision is tainted by an error which meets the tests
for patent unreasonableness.
[22]
The
applicant was asked to submit additional information, and she did. She was also
advised of the procedure followed by the Advisory Body in its investigation. A
study of the file confirms that the requirements of procedural fairness were
followed.
[23]
For the
most part, the applicant’s submissions concerned the fact that she had obtained
a conditional discharge, thus ruling out paragraph II.35(2)(a) of the Program.
When a discharge is granted, this creates a legal fiction, and the person
convicted is deemed to have never been convicted (Doyon v. R., [2004]
J.Q. 13986 (per Mr. Justice Marc Beauregard of the Quebec Court of
Appeal)). Therefore, she submits that the respondent cannot render his decision
on the basis of the above-mentioned paragraph, which states that when the
Advisory Body makes its recommendation, it is entitled to consider if the
person has been convicted of an offence.
[24]
However,
in the judgment cited in the preceding paragraph, Doyon J. was of a different
opinion than Beauregard J. and wrote the following at paragraph 44:
[translation]
Even if he is deemed not to have been
convicted, the offender nevertheless pleaded guilty, and this remains in spite
of the fact he was discharged.
The third judge, Madam Justice Louise Mailhot, endorsed this
opinion.
[25]
Meanwhile,
the respondent submits that the decision, as short as it may be, was not
rendered on the basis of paragraph II.35 (2)(a) of the Program, but under paragraph
I.4(d) (Objective), where mention is made of the likelihood that a person may commit
an act, or assist or abet the commission of an act, that may unlawfully
interfere with civil aviation. He submits that the Advisory Body may consider
any relevant factor, including II.35 (2)(a).
[26]
He adds
that, in spite of the conditional discharge obtained by the applicant, her
admission of guilt does not disappear, and the respondent was completely
warranted in considering these persisting facts.
[27]
The
respondent also refers the Court to the evidence of the alleged manipulation
and negative influences of which the applicant was a victim and states that in
this case the issue is the assessment of the likelihood of the potential risk
which the applicant may represent for civil aviation.
[28]
Even though
the applicant obtained a conditional discharge following her guilty plea, this
does not prevent the Minister from exercising his discretion to decide whether
or not to issue a security clearance to her.
[29]
The
evidence in criminal matters is considerably different from the factors and
criteria which the respondent must consider when he is called on to grant,
refuse or cancel a security clearance.
[30]
The
Court’s intervention is not warranted.
JUDGMENT
THE COURT ORDERS that
1.
The
application for judicial review be dismissed without costs.
“Michel Beaudry”
Certified
true translation
Michael
Palles
Email this Content