Docket: A-10-15
Citation:
2015 FCA 217
|
CORAM:
|
TRUDEL J.A.
SCOTT J.A.
BOIVIN J.A.
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
KELLY PLATO
|
|
Appellant
|
|
and
|
|
CANADA REVENUE
AGENCY
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on
October 13, 2015).
SCOTT J.A.
[1]
This is an appeal from a judgement of Boswell J.
(the Judge) of the Federal Court, dated December 19, 2014 which dismissed on
grounds of mootness a second application for judicial review brought by Mr.
Kelly Plato (the appellant) that challenged the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA)
measures to correct an error in a staffing process conducted in 2007.
[2]
The Judge found the application for judicial
review to be moot primarily because neither the appellant’s rights nor those of
any other candidate could be affected by a decision in this application; the
appellant having admitted that he could never have been successful in the
staffing process at issue, and because the pool of candidates for the AU-2 tax
auditor position ceased to exist in 2010. Notwithstanding the appellant’s
opposition, the Judge allowed new evidence in the form of an affidavit executed
by Ms. Lin Lian, employee of the CRA, establishing that the appellant was
promoted to the position of tax auditor AU-03 on March 17, 2014 because it was
relevant to the issue of mootness.
[3]
The Judge declined to exercise his discretion to
hear the case even if it was moot because the rights of the appellant or those
of any other candidate could not be affected by the case since the assessment
tool, that is the standardized assessment tool for Legislation Policies and Procedures
was not used anymore by the CRA.
[4]
The identification of the legal factors to
determine if a case is moot is a question of law reviewable under the standard
of correctness (Canada (Fisheries and Oceans) v. David Suzuki Foundation,
2012 FCA 40, [2013] 4 F.C.R. 155, at paragraph 57). Once it is established that
a case is moot, the Judge has a broad discretion to hear the matter or not, but
must properly weigh the criteria established in Borowski v. Canada (Attorney
General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342, (Borowski). This fine exercise of
balancing is a mixed question of facts and law. Deference is owed to that
decision.
[5]
Before us, the appellant challenged the Judge’s
decision on three grounds. Firstly, he submits that the affidavit establishing
that he had been promoted to a higher classified position than the one at issue
in his application for judicial review should not have been admitted into
evidence. He argues that it failed to meet the four-prong test to admit new
evidence since it was irrelevant on the issue of mootness and was not submitted
in a timely manner. He also asserts that the Judge erred in declining to decide
the case after concluding that his application for judicial review was moot
since there is still a tangible dispute that could affect the outcome of the
selection process at issue. Finally, he claims that the Judge failed to address
the reasonableness of the corrective measures taken by the CRA.
[6]
Despite able arguments by counsel for the
appellant, we are of the opinion that this appeal must fail for the following
reasons.
[7]
Even if the Judge would have erred in allowing
the affidavit as new evidence, as it was not filed in a timely manner, it does
not impeach his finding that the appellant’s application for judicial review is
moot.
[8]
The appellant conceded before us that, even
without this affidavit, the Judge could have reached the same conclusion. The
Judge applied the criteria established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Borowski
when he determined there was no live controversy.
[9]
We are satisfied that the Judge chose the proper
test and made no error in applying it to the particular facts of this case.
[10]
The Judge did not err either when he declined to
use his discretion to hear this case notwithstanding that it was moot. We see
no error in his assessment that the appellant does not have a personal stake in
the outcome of his judicial application. The CRA had used a locally developed
assessment tool in the selection process, as opposed to the standardized
assessment tool used in the selection process, which is no longer in place and
the pool of qualified candidates no longer exists. Consequently, his conclusion
on the lack of a live controversy or concrete dispute stands and therefore, it
was not necessary that he address the reasonableness of the corrective measures
implemented by the CRA.
[11]
Having consideration to whether there is an
adversarial context, to the lack of practical effect of any decision of this
Court on the appellant, to the interests of judicial economy and to the role of
the courts in the legal system as a whole, we find no error in the Federal
Court judgment that warrants the intervention of this Court.
[12]
For these reasons, this appeal will therefore be
dismissed with costs.
"A.F. Scott"
Email this Content