Docket: T-1704-13
Citation:
2014 FC 758
Ottawa, Ontario, July 30, 2014
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
RICHARD HORSEMAN
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
DUSTIN TWINN, ELECTORAL OFFICER FOR HORSE LAKE FIRST NATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Overview
[1]
Mr Richard Horseman seeks to overturn a decision
of the Horse Lake First Nation’s electoral officer, Mr Dustin Twin, removing Mr
Horseman as a candidate for Chief of the HLFN for an election that took place in
October 2013.
[2]
Mr Twin concluded that Mr Horseman was
ineligible because the Band Election Custom Code provided that a candidate must
not be in arrears on any debts owed to the HLFN or entities under its control
in an amount equal to or greater than $2500. Mr Twin took a number of steps to
ascertain who was indebted to the HLFN. He found that Mr Horseman owed the HLFN
or entities under its control amounts exceeding $2500. He informed Mr Horseman
that he was ineligible and advised him of the right to appeal the decision
under the Code.
[3]
Mr Horseman argues that the officer treated him
unfairly by not giving him a chance to address the officer’s concerns before
the decision was rendered. He also contends that the decision was unreasonable
because his debts were not personal. They were owed by a corporate entity with
which he was associated. He asks me to overturn the officer’s decision and
order the officer to reconsider his candidacy.
[4]
In my view, this application for judicial review
must be dismissed. Mr Horseman had the option of appealing the officer’s
decision and that is a preferable procedural remedy in the circumstances.
Accordingly, I must decline to address Mr Horseman’s application for judicial
review.
II.
The Court’s Discretion
[5]
The Court clearly has discretion whether to
consider an application for judicial review where the applicant has an adequate
alternative remedy (Buenaventura Jr v Telecommunications Workers Union, 2012 FCA 69 at para 24). The Court must consider the convenience, speed, and
cost of the alternative remedy, the nature of the alleged error, and the nature
of the alternative decision maker.
[6]
Here, the appeal mechanisms under the Code are
far more convenient, expeditious, and cost-effective than applying for judicial
review in this Court. There is no possibility now of reinstating Mr Horseman as
a candidate in the last election, but that might have been possible if he had
pursued an appeal within the applicable 30-day limit instead of launching this
application. He was clearly informed of the possibility of doing so. Further,
an appeal would be the preferable remedy given that the provisions of the Code
were drafted by members of the HLFN to suit local circumstances. Moreover, the
alleged error by the officer related directly to the electoral process, for
which the remedy of an appeal was specifically provided in the Code.
[7]
Accordingly, the Court should decline to
entertain Mr Horseman’s application for judicial review.
III.
Conclusion and Disposition
[8]
Mr Horseman had an adequate alternative remedy –
an appeal of the electoral officer’s decision finding him ineligible for office
– which he should have pursued instead of commencing this application for
judicial review. Accordingly, the application is dismissed, with costs.
Email this Content