Date: 20090209
Docket: A-532-08
A-534-08
Citation: 2009 FCA 36
Present: SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
JOHN
DETORAKIS
Appellant
and
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
THE PUBLIC SECTOR INTEGRITY CANADA (also known as THE PUBLIC SECTOR INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER)
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondents
Dealt with in writing without appearance
of parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario,
on February 9, 2009.
REASONS
FOR ORDER BY: SHARLOW
J.A.
Date: 20090209
Docket: A-532-08
A-534-08
Citation: 2009 FCA 36
Present: SHARLOW
J.A.
BETWEEN:
JOHN DETORAKIS
Appellant
and
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE PUBLIC
SECTOR INTEGRITY CANADA (also known as THE PUBLIC
SECTOR INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER)
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER
SHARLOW J.A.
[1]
The
appellant John Detorakis has filed an application in the Federal Court (T-1078-08)
seeking certain administrative law remedies against the Public Sector Integrity
Commissioner. On October 7, 2008, Justice Phelan made two interlocutory orders
in that application. The first order requires the Attorney General of Canada to
be named as respondent in place of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.
The second order requires the application to be specially managed. Mr.
Detorakis has appealed both interlocutory orders, naming as respondents both the
Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and the Attorney General of Canada.
[2]
Mr.
Detorakis also moved to stay both interlocutory orders, but those motions were
dismissed on November
26, 2008 by
Justice Létourneau.
Motions re proper respondent in appeals
[3]
Before me
are motions by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner to be removed as
respondent in both appeals. Mr. Detorakis opposes the motions because he
believes that unless the Commissioner is named as a respondent, he will have no
effective remedy for his complaint that the Commissioner is in breach of his
obligation under Rule 318 to provide certain tribunal records. In my view, Mr.
Detorakis’ concern is unfounded. If a breach of Rule 318 is established, the Federal
Court has the jurisdiction to make an order that will remedy the breach, even
if the Commissioner is not named as a respondent.
[4]
The
Attorney General of Canada is the only proper respondent in Mr. Detorakis’
application in the Federal Court, and that will remain the case unless Mr.
Detorakis’ appeal of the first order of Justice Phelan is successful. Therefore,
the Attorney General of Canada is the only proper respondent in these
interlocutory appeals. For that reason, the motions of the Public Sector
Integrity Commissioner will be granted.
Motion re Rule 318
[5]
Mr.
Detorakis has filed a motion in relation to the first interlocutory appeal for
an order under Rule 350 requiring the Commissioner to produce certain
documents. This motion will be dismissed. I am not satisfied that any tribunal
records are needed to resolve an interlocutory appeal on the question of
whether the Attorney General of Canada is the only proper respondent in an
application for judicial review.
Costs
[6]
The costs
of these motions will be costs in the cause.
“K.
Sharlow”
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-532-08
A-534-08
STYLE OF CAUSE: John
Detorakis v. The Chief Executive Officer of the Public Service Integrity Canada and The Attorney General of Canada
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: SHARLOW J.A.
DATED: February 9, 2009
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
|
John Detorakis
|
ON HIS OWN BEHALF
|
|
Joe Friday
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
|
|
|
General
Counsel
Office of the Public Section
Integrity Canada
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content