Date: 20020326
Docket: T-2380-00
Neutral Citation: 2002 FCT 338
BETWEEN:
SÉBASTIEN BOUCHARD,
Applicant,
- and -
PHILIP C. CAMPBELL, in his capacity as Acting Officer i/c
for the Personnel Section of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
MICHAEL ROBINEAU, in his capacity as Corporal for the
Personnel Section of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
JOSSELYN GAUDET, in his capacity as Chief Superintendent
for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
THE COMMISSIONER OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
Respondents.
REASONS FOR ORDER
NADON J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review filed in opposition to a decision of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (the "RCMP") not to accept the candidacy of the applicant as a regular member of the RCMP.
[2] On March 31, 1998, while he was a law student, the applicant filed an application to enlist as a regular member of the RCMP. Following an investigation in respect of his employability, the RCMP rejected his candidacy. On March 27, 2000, Inspector Philip C. Campbell, Acting Officer i/c of the Staffing and Personnel Section, Division A and DG, wrote to the applicant in the following terms:
[Translation] Pursuant to your application to enlist as a regular member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, I regret to announce that owing to the results of the eligibility investigation we must terminate the examination of your application. We have found that you are not eligible as a regular member of the RCMP and have closed your file.
[3] On June 27, 2000, the applicant wrote to Mr. Campbell to protest the rejection of his application for hire as a regular member of the RCMP. Mr. Campbell's decision, he said, was arbitrary and clearly without foundation in fact and in law.
[4] On November 13, 2000, the applicant wrote to the Commissioner of the RCMP to request a re-examination or review of the decision rendered by Mr. Campbell on March 27, 2000. The applicant's letter reads as follows:
[Translation]
The present letter is an appeal to your power to re-examine or review the final decision rendered by Mr. Philip C. Campbell in relation to my being hired as a regular member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This review should be carried out in light of the following facts:
- Whereas my application file is irreproachable
- Whereas Mr. Campbell's decision was based on a police report having no probative value and whereas no conviction has been made or even prosecution brought, it was his duty to base his decision on relevant evidence.
- Whereas I have never been informed of the existence of any such report and I have argued that the allegations included therein are false.
- Whereas all decision makers have a duty to respect the presumption of innocence of reasonable doubt. In this regard, Mr. Campbell should have confined himself to the conclusions of the investigators in charge of my file, Mr. Jean-Guy Caron and Mr. Y.J. Drouin, whose conclusions were favourable.
I am asking you to agree to my request for review in order to remedy this unjustified rejection and ensure that the administration of the government is conducted in compliance with the duty to act fairly.
[5] On December 4, 2000, the Chief Superintendent Josselyn Gaudet replied to the applicant's letter of November 13, 2000 in the following words:
[Translation]
Pursuant to your letter of November 13, 2000 to the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police concerning your candidacy for recruitment to the RCMP, your letter was conveyed to me for the purpose of conducting a review of your file.
I have examined closely all aspects of your file. I noted that you have successfully passed the selection interview for regular members. However, the investigation that followed, which is an integral part of the selection process, revealed some shortcomings. In view of these results and the number of applicants for the few available positions in the RCMP, and after careful consideration, I feel I must accept and support the decision of the Officer i/c of the Staffing and Personnel Section, Ottawa.
I regret that I am unable to respond favourably to your application. However, you may if you so desire re-apply in two years.
[6] Two questions are raised by this litigation. Firstly, I must determine whether the application for judicial review of the applicant is out of time. If so, the application must be dismissed. If the reply to the first question is no, I must then determine whether the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness have been observed.
[7] Subsection 18.1(2) of the Federal Court Act provides that any application for judicial review must be made within 30 days after the impugned decision was first communicated. In this case the application for judicial review was filed on December 22, 2000, within 30 days following the communication of Mr. Gaudet's letter of December 4, 2000. If Mr. Gaudet's letter constitutes a decision within the meaning of subsection 18.1(2), and this decision is the one to which the application for judicial review is addressed, the application was filed within the prescribed time.
[8] The respondent argues that the decision the applicant should have challenged is the one rendered by Mr. Campbell on March 27, 2000. Since the applicant did not file his application for judicial review until December 22, 2000, nine months after communication of Mr. Campbell's decision, it must be dismissed.
[9] Like my colleague Mr. Justice Teitelbaum, in Drolet (Trustee) v. Canada (Superintendent of Bankruptcy) (1996), 118 F.T.R. 147, I conclude that the application for judicial review must be dismissed because the decision that the applicant is actually challenging is the one rendered by Mr. Campbell on March 27, 2000.
[10] In the first place, the introductory paragraphs of the application for judicial review filed on December 22, 2000 read as follows:
[Translation]
THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW IN RESPECT OF:
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (hereinafter RCMP), more specifically the recruitment section of the National Capital Region, for the reasons in its decision to reject the applicant's eligibility as a regular member of its organization.
This decision was reviewed by the RCMP at our request on December 4, 2000, but officially confirmed to the applicant on December 7, 2000.
It is obvious that this decision was based on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse and capricious manner and without regard for the conclusive material to the opposite effect.
[11] As is apparent from the introductory paragraphs of the application for judicial review, the applicant is referring to Mr. Campbell's decision and Mr. Gaudet's "decision" dated December 4, 2000. When the applicant uses the word "decision" in the third paragraph above, it is not prima facie evident to which decision he is referring. In my opinion, a careful reading of these paragraphs leads to the conclusion that the decision disputed by the applicant is the decision of Mr. Campbell.
[12] I note as well that in the affidavit he filed in support of his application for judicial review, the applicant addresses primarily the decision of Mr. Campbell. He refers to Mr. Gaudet's "decision" only in paragraph 33 of his affidavit, where he states:
[Translation]
33. Pursuant to a request for review by me, last December 7 I was refused a rectification of this injustice for a second time. The respondent Mr. Gaudet of [sic] RCMP confined himself to upholding the initial decision but without explaining his reasons. (Exhibit D-9)
[13] In paragraphs 10 and 11 of his Memorandum, the applicant states the issues as follows:
[Translation]
10. Did the recruitment process of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police breach the principles of natural justice in regard to Mr. Sébastien Bouchard?
11. Is the decision impartial, fair and equitable in view of the statements by Corporal Michael Robineau?
[14] I am persuaded, from reading the applicant's Memorandum, that his application for judicial review is directed against Mr. Campbell's decision of March 27, 2000. I am similarly persuaded that the application is in no wise directed against Mr. Gaudet's "decision" of December 4, 2000. The applicant raises no error, either in his application for judicial review or in his Memorandum, alleged committed by Mr. Gaudet when he refused to review Mr. Campbell's decision.
[15] I conclude, therefore, that the application for judicial review filed on December 22, 2000 is out of time. Since the applicant made no application to extend the thirty-day period, his application for judicial review shall be dismissed.
[16] Since I have concluded that the application for judicial review is out of time, I need not decide whether Mr. Gaudet's letter of December 4, 2000 constitutes a decision within the meaning of subsection 18.1(2) of the Federal Court Act.
[17] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed, without costs.
Marc Nadon
Judge
O T T A W A, Ontario
March 26, 2002
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L., Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET NO: T-2380-00
STYLE: SÉBASTIEN BOUCHARD v. PHILIP C. CAMPBELL ET AL.
PLACE OF HEARING: QUÉBEC, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 14, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER OF MR. JUSTICE NADON
DATED: MARCH 26, 2002
APPEARANCES:
SÉBASTIEN BOUCHARD FOR THE APPLICANT (HIMSELF)
MARIE-JOSÉE MONTREUIL FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
284 WELLINGTON STREET
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
K1A 0H8 FOR THE RESPONDENT
Email this Content