Docket: A-301-15
Citation: 2015 FCA 218
|
CORAM:
|
TRUDEL J.A.
BOIVIN J.A.
DE MONTIGNY J.A.
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
ADE OLUMIDE
|
|
Appellant
|
|
and
|
|
CONSERVATIVE
PARTY OF CANADA
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT
TRUDEL J.A.
[1]
Mr. Olumide appeals from a decision of Mr.
Justice Barnes of the Federal Court finding that the Federal Court lacks
jurisdiction to hear his application because the respondent, the Conservative
Party of Canada, is not a federal board, commission, or other tribunal within
the meaning of section 18 of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.
F-7.
[2]
The appellant sought to be a candidate for the
Conservative Party of Canada (the Party) in the 2015 Federal Election in the
riding of Kanata-Carleton. His candidacy was rejected by the Party, and that
decision was upheld during the Party’s internal appeal process. He then applied
to the Federal Court for judicial review, alleging bias and violations of
procedural fairness.
[3]
The appellant is self-represented before this
Court, as he was before the Federal Court. His submissions raise many arguments
that are entirely unrelated to the question of whether the Federal Court is
empowered to hear his application, or indeed to the merits of his application.
For our purposes, it suffices to examine the jurisdiction issue as it is
dispositive of this appeal.
[4]
In the appellant’s notice of appeal, the only
ground that appears to address the question of jurisdiction in any way is
stated as follows:
Response to Jurisdiction Request for
direction: was misleading to a self-represented
litigant, if the direction was based on an opinion that the Court not members
should decide who their representative should be, this is inconsistent with s3
Charter Rights, s2.1.4 / 8.6.2 / s2.1.6 Constitution of Conservative Party,
Federal Court rule 3 just disposition on merit, Charter and Canadian Bill of
Rights against Cruel and Unusual Victimization of a Victim Principle of
Fundamental Justice (sic throughout).
(Notice of appeal, at paragraph 9) II.)
[5]
The appellant states in his Memorandum of Fact
and Law that the Federal Court has jurisdiction to review political parties’
decision to refuse candidates because political parties derive that power from
the Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9 (appellant’s Memorandum of
Fact and Law, at page 7).
[6]
I am unable to find any further explanation to
this assertion in the appellant’s submissions, nor any other attempt to address
the Federal Court’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the
application.
[7]
I agree with the respondent’s characterization
of the Canada Elections Act, and in particular that the eligibility
requirements for candidates under the Act do not render parties’ selection of
their candidates a statutorily delegated exercise (respondent’s Memorandum of
Fact and Law, at paragraph 35).
[8]
The appellant has provided no sound reason to
interfere with the Federal Court’s conclusion that the respondent, as a private
association, is not a federal board, commission, or other tribunal. As did the
Federal Court before me, I conclude that neither the Federal Court nor the
Federal Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear this matter. The same
reasoning applies to the constitutional question raised by the appellant in his
recently revised Notice of Constitutional Question (dated September 22, 2015).
[9]
This said, I must comment about some of the
appellant’s arguments made at the hearing of this appeal. During his oral
submissions, Mr. Olumide, for the first time, stated that race and ethnicity
were at the root of his case. He added that the Office of the Prime Minister
played a role in the treatment of his application to run as a candidate for the
Party. He presented a vague theory of premeditation whereby both the respondent
and governmental actors would have created a plan allowing him to run for the
nomination “as long as he did not win”.
[10]
I have carefully reviewed the record. There is
not an iota of evidence substantiating these serious allegations but for one email
written by the appellant himself to the executive director of the Party (Appeal
Book, volume 1, at page 36). At the hearing of this appeal, the appellant could
not point to any relevant material supporting his discrimination allegation or
his theory of a premeditated plot to reject his candidacy.
[11]
Finally, I also note that as stated by the
Federal Court, the appellant is, “not necessarily
without remedy”. Indeed, Mr. Olumide has commenced in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice an action in damages against the Conservative Party
of Canada and other defendants seeking 4.8 million dollars under various heads
of damages.
[12]
In the end, this appeal cannot succeed.
Consequently, I propose to dismiss it with costs assessed in the mid-range of
column IV and payable forthwith.
"Johanne Trudel"
“RB”
“YdM”
Email this Content