Date: 20070913
Docket: T-1905-06
Citation: 2007 FC 901
Ottawa, Ontario, September
13, 2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Keefe
BETWEEN:
BRITISH
COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
O’KEEFE J.
[1]
The
respondent made a motion to strike the notice of application. The applicant made
a further motion for an order directing the Chair to produce the certified
tribunal record. Pursuant to Rule 8, the respondent made a motion for an
extension of time to produce the certified tribunal record.
[2]
With
respect to the motion to strike the notice of application, the respondent seeks
the following relief:
1. an order striking
out the applicant’s notice of application;
2. an order dismissing
the applicant’s application for judicial review; and
3. costs of this motion
payable by the applicant to the respondent fixed in the amount of $1,000.00
[3]
With
respect to the motion for an order directing the Chair to produce the certified
tribunal record, the applicant seeks:
1. an order directing
the Chair to serve and file a response within twenty days of the order of this
Court; and
2. costs.
[4]
With
respect to the motion for an extension of time to produce the certified
tribunal record, the respondent seeks:
1. an order allowing
the respondent’s motion to extend the time to file the certified tribunal
record until after the hearing and the determination of the motion to strike;
and
2. costs of the motion.
Background
[5]
Mr.
Ian Bush died on October 29, 2005, from a gunshot wound to the back of his
head. The wound was inflicted while he was in the custody of the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police (RCMP), at the Houston RCMP detachment in British
Columbia.
On November 7, 2005, Jason Gratl filed a complaint with the Commission for
Public Complaints Against the RCMP (the Commission) on behalf of the British
Colombia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA or the applicant), alleging that
members of the RCMP had unnecessarily used excessive force in the death of Mr.
Bush.
[6]
On
December 8, 2005, the RCMP advised that the applicant’s complaint would not be
investigated prior to the completion of an investigation by the RCMP. The
matter was therefore held in abeyance. The applicant sought review of this decision
and on June 19, 2006, the Chair of the Commission concluded that the RCMP did
not have the jurisdiction to hold the matter in abeyance. The Chair also
referred the matter for appropriate disposition. On July 5, 2006, the RCMP
advised the applicant that its complaint had been terminated. The RCMP advised
that their investigation was being reviewed by the New Westminster Police
Department, and that the resulting report would be provided to the crown
prosecutor’s office and/or the Chief Coroner of British Colombia. As a result,
investigation of the applicant’s complaint was neither necessary nor
practicable.
[7]
The
applicant objected to the termination of its complaint, and requested a review
of the decision by the Commission. On September 26, 2006, the Chair determined
that the decision to terminate the complaint was reasonable. However, the Chair
initiated his own complaint regarding the matter on September 28, 2006,
pursuant to subsection 45.37(1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act,
R.S.C. 1985, c. R-10 (the Act). The Chair was satisfied that there were
reasonable grounds to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of
Mr. Bush. On September 29, 2006, the applicant lodged a second complaint into
the death of Mr. Bush. The RCMP investigation into the second complaint was
terminated on December 4, 2006, pursuant to paragraph 45.36(5)(c) of the Act,
because it was not necessary or reasonably practicable in light of the Chair’s
complaint into the same matter.
[8]
On
October 30, 2006, the applicant sought judicial review of the Chair’s decision
that the termination of its first complaint was reasonable. In its notice of
application, the applicant made a request pursuant to Rule 317 of the Federal
Courts Rules, S.O.R./98-106, for the Chair to send a certified copy of any
documents referred to in the decision upholding the termination of the first
complaint. By order of Prothonotary Lafrenière, dated November 17, 2006,
service of the notice of application was deemed effective on November 14, 2005.
The Chair was ordered to serve and file a certified copy of the requested
material by December 5, 2006.
[9]
The
respondent filed a motion to strike the notice of application on December 4,
2006. The applicant filed a motion on December 15, 2006 to compel the production
of the certified tribunal record (among other requests), which the Chair had
declined to provide pending the adjudication of the respondent’s motion to
strike. The applicant filed an amended notice of motion on January 15, 2007,
which limited the content of the motion to the production of the certified
tribunal record, as the respondent had abandoned arguments relating to the time
within which the application for judicial review was filed. The respondent also
filed a motion on January 9, 2006, seeking an extension of time to produce the
certified tribunal record.
Issues
[10]
The
following issues were submitted for consideration:
1. Is the application
for judicial review moot?
2. If the application
for judicial review is moot, should the Court exercise its discretion and hear
the application for judicial review?
3. If the application
for judicial review is not moot, is the respondent required to produce the certified
tribunal record?
4. If the respondent is
required to produce the certified tribunal record, when should the tribunal record
be delivered?
I. Motion to
Strike Notice of Application
[11]
The
respondent submitted that the application for judicial review was moot and that
the Court should not exercise its discretion to hear the application given the
circumstances of the case. In David Bull Laboratories (Canada) v. Pharmacia
Inc., [1995] 1 F.C. 588, (1994) 176 N.R. 48 (C.A.), the Court
held that it may strike out and dismiss an application for judicial review by
way of preliminary motion where the application is bereft of any possibility of
success.
[12]
The
respondent submitted that should the application for judicial review be
granted, it would be referred back to the Chair for redetermination. The
redetermination would be regarding whether the decision by the RCMP to
terminate the complaint was reasonable. It was submitted that the Chair’s
subsequent decision would be made in light of its own complaint. As a result,
no live dispute remained (see Ismail v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1679, [2005] F.C.J. No. 2075).
[13]
The
respondent noted that pursuant to subsection 45.37(1) of the Act, the Chair
acts as a member of the public when initiating a complaint and the complaint is
then directed for investigation by the RCMP. It was submitted that there was no
advantage to the applicant in filing its own complaint as compared to the
Chair’s, and no benefit would be gained should the application for judicial
review be granted. The respondent noted that once a complaint was filed, the
Act did not provide any statutory rights for the complainant to participate in
its investigation.
[14]
The
respondent submitted that the applicant wanted an investigation into the
conduct of RCMP officers allegedly involved in the death of Mr. Bush, and that
the Chair’s complaint would accomplish this goal. It was submitted that the
Chair’s complaint was broader than the applicant’s complaint. The respondent
submitted that there was no live controversy between the parties, as the
investigation into Mr. Bush’s death was ongoing (see Saskatchewan (Minister
of Agriculture, Food and Rural Revitalization) v. Canada (Attorney
General)
(2005), 141 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1,
2005
FC 1027). It was submitted that there was no purpose in hearing this
application for judicial review, since the applicant was seeking the same
relief from the Court as was being granted by the Chair when he initiated his
own complaint.
[15]
The
respondent submitted that the application for judicial review was moot, but
acknowledged that the Court had jurisdiction to hear a moot case (see Borowski
v. Canada (Attorney
General),
[1989] 1 S.C.R. 342, (1989) 57 D.L.R. (4th) 231). The following test for
determining whether the Court should hear a moot case was set out in Borowski:
(1) the presence of an adversarial context; (2) the concern for judicial
economy; and (3) the need for the Court to be sensitive to its role as the
adjudicative branch in our political framework.
[16]
The
respondent submitted that there was no adversarial context between the
applicant and the Chair, as both wanted an investigation into the death of Mr.
Bush. There was also no uncertainty as to whether or not an investigation into
the death would occur, as it was occurring. It was submitted that it was futile
to apply scarce judicial resources to a hearing that would not resolve
anything. Finally, it was submitted that the applicant would not suffer any
injustice if the application was struck and the Court refused to exercise its
discretion, since the Chair had initiated his own complaint
Applicant’s Submissions
[17]
The
applicant submitted that the Court’s jurisdiction to dismiss a notice of
application summarily was narrow and should only be exercised where an
application had no possibility of success (see David Bull Laboratories above).
It was submitted that a notice of application should not be struck where the
respondent merely raises a debatable issue. The applicant submitted that the
doctrine of mootness was applicable in situations which addressed hypothetical
questions. It was submitted that allegations of mootness were determined
through a two-step analysis (see Borowski above):
1. Has the required
tangible dispute disappeared and the issues become academic (the live
controversy test)?
2. If so, should the Court
exercise its discretion to hear the case even though it may have become moot?
[18]
The
applicant noted that its public complaint had been terminated, and that the
Chair had initiated his own complaint. It was submitted that the Act did not
provide that once the Chair initiated a complaint, a prior public complaint on
the same subject was redundant. The applicant submitted that the Act
contemplated meaningful participation by the public in the complaint process.
The applicant submitted that it had contributed to the complaint process in the
past and would provide valuable input into the complaint with respect to Mr.
Bush’s death. It was noted that the applicant launched its complaint eleven
months before the Chair initiated his own complaint.
[19]
The
applicant noted that the date upon which the Chair became satisfied with the
RCMP’s termination of the public complaint, the Chair was also satisfied that
there were grounds to investigate the matter and initiated his own complaint.
It was submitted that if the applicant’s complaint was wrongly terminated and
was remitted for redetermination by the Chair, a possible outcome would be the
initiation of a hearing in which the applicant would have full party status
(see paragraph 45.42(3)(c) and subsection 45.45(15) of the Act). In addition,
further investigation could take place and the Act did not prevent a public
complaint from running parallel to a complaint initiated by the Chair.
[20]
The
applicant submitted that there remained a live controversy and the
determination of the lawfulness of the Chair’s decision was not hypothetical,
as it had consequences for the rights of the applicant. It was submitted that
the matter was not moot and should proceed to a hearing on the merits. The
applicant submitted that an adversarial context existed since the applicant’s
rights were at stake and it could potentially be denied further participatory
rights under the Act.
[21]
The
respondent had argued that a complainant had no participatory rights under the
Act in the investigation of a public complaint. The applicant submitted that
questions of procedural rights under the Act were matters that touched upon the
merits of the notice of application. The applicant did not accept that it had
no rights under the Act other than to make a complaint. In addition, it was
submitted that no concerns arose regarding judicial economy or the proper law
making function of the Court.
Analysis and Decision
[22]
Issue
1
Is the application for
judicial review moot?
The Supreme Court of Canada in Borowski
above, at paragraphs 15 and 16 stated:
15.
The doctrine of mootness is an aspect of a general policy or practice that a
court may decline to decide a case which raises merely a hypothetical or
abstract question. The general principle applies when the decision of the court
will not have the effect of resolving some controversy which affects or may
affect the rights of the parties. If the decision of the court will have
no practical effect on such rights, the court will decline to decide the
case. This essential ingredient must be present not only when the action
or proceeding is commenced but at the time when the court is called upon to
reach a decision. Accordingly if, subsequent to the initiation of the
action or proceeding, events occur which affect the relationship of the parties
so that no present live controversy exists which affects the rights of the
parties, the case is said to be moot. The general policy or practice is
enforced in moot cases unless the court exercises its discretion to depart from
its policy or practice. The relevant factors relating to the
exercise of the court's discretion are discussed hereinafter.
16.
The approach in recent cases involves a two-step analysis. First it is
necessary to determine whether the required tangible and concrete dispute has
disappeared and the issues have become academic. Second, if the response
to the first question is affirmative, it is necessary to decide if the court
should exercise its discretion to hear the case. The cases do not always make
it clear whether the term "moot" applies to cases that do not present
a concrete controversy or whether the term applies only to such of those cases
as the court declines to hear. In the interest of clarity, I consider that
a case is moot if it fails to meet the "live controversy"
test. A court may nonetheless elect to address a moot issue if the
circumstances warrant.
[23]
With
respect to striking an application for judicial review, the Federal Court of
Appeal stated in David Bull Laboratories above, at paragraph 15:
For
these reasons we are satisfied that the Trial Judge properly declined to make
an order striking out, under Rule 419 or by means of the "gap" rule,
as if this were an action. This is not to say that there is no jurisdiction in
this Court either inherent or through Rule 5 by analogy to other rules, to
dismiss in summary manner a notice of motion which is so clearly improper as to
be bereft of any possibility of success. Such cases must be very exceptional
and cannot include cases such as the present where there is simply a debatable
issue as to the adequacy of the allegations in the notice of motion.
[24]
If
the initiation of a complaint by the Chair automatically justified the ending
of an earlier public complaint, this would lead to the consequence that the Chair
could quash or end a public complaint thereby denying the public complainant
the procedural entitlements set out in the Act. The Act does not rule out the
possibility of parallel complaints. I do not believe a motion to strike for
mootness is the proper form for determining the issues.
[25]
I
would therefore deny the motion to strike the application for judicial review
for mootness as the test for striking the application on the basis of mootness
is not met.
[26]
Issue
2
If the application for
judicial review is moot, should the Court exercise its discretion and hear the
application for judicial review?
As I found the application for
judicial review was not moot, I need not deal with this issue.
[27]
Issue
3
If the application for
judicial review is not moot, is the respondent required to produce the certified
tribunal record?
Prothonotary Lafrenière ordered
the record to be filed by December 5, 2006, but as a result of the motion to
strike the notice of application, the record was not filed. No motion has been filed
to stay the filing of the certified tribunal record until this motion to strike
was decided. Thus, I am of the view that the certified tribunal record should
be filed.
[28]
Issue
4
If the respondent is
required to produce the certified tribunal record, when should the tribunal
record be delivered?
I am of the opinion that the
certified tribunal record should be filed within 20 days of the filing of this
order. There is no disagreement between the parties on this time limit.
[29]
The
parties also requested a timeline for filing of affidavits and other documents.
It would seem to me that the filings could be filed within the time limits set
out in the Rules with the commencement point being the date of the receipt of
the certified tribunal record. If the parties require further directions with
respect to this matter, they may request me to make further directions.
[30]
The
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association shall have its costs of the
motions.
JUDGMENT
[31]
IT
IS ORDERED that:
1. The
respondent’s motion to strike the notice of application is dismissed.
2. The tribunal shall
file and serve the certified tribunal record within 20 days of the date of
filing this order.
3. The timeline for
filing the remaining documents shall be the number of days allowed by the Federal
Courts Rules above, with the commencement date being the date of the filing
of the certified tribunal record.
4. The British
Columbia
Civil Liberties Association shall have its costs of the motions.
“John
A. O’Keefe”
ANNEX
Relevant Statutory Provisions
The relevant statutory provisions are set
out in this section.
The Federal Courts Act, R.S.C.
1985, c. F-7.:
|
18.4(1)
Subject to subsection (2), an application or reference to the Federal Court
under any of sections 18.1 to 18.3 shall be heard and determined without
delay and in a summary way.
. .
.
|
18.4(1)
Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), la Cour fédérale statue à bref délai et selon
une procédure sommaire sur les demandes et les renvois qui lui sont présentés
dans le cadre des articles 18.1 à 18.3.
. . .
|
The Federal
Courts Rules, S.O.R./98-106 :
|
35.(1) Subject
to rule 298 and paragraph 385(1)(b), motions that can conveniently be heard
at the General Sittings of the Federal Court may be made returnable
accordingly.
(2) A request
may be made informally to the Judicial Administrator of the Federal Court of
Appeal or the Federal Court, as the case may be, for an appointment of a
special time and place
. . .
(b) for
sittings of a judge of the Federal Court or of a prothonotary to hear a
motion that is likely to be lengthy or a motion to be heard other than at
General Sittings.
. . .
58.(1)
A party may by motion challenge any step taken by another party for
non-compliance with these Rules.
(2) A motion
under subsection (1) shall be brought as soon as practicable after the moving
party obtains knowledge of the irregularity.
59. Subject to rule 57, where, on a motion
brought under rule 58, the Court finds that a party has not complied with
these Rules, the Court may, by order,
(a) dismiss
the motion, where the motion was not brought within a sufficient time after
the moving party became aware of the irregularity to avoid prejudice to the
respondent in the motion;
(b) grant any
amendments required to address the irregularity; or
(c) set aside
the proceeding, in whole or in part.
60. At any
time before judgment is given in a proceeding, the Court may draw the
attention of a party to any gap in the proof of its case or to any
non-compliance with these Rules and permit the party to remedy it on such
conditions as the Court considers just.
|
35.(1) Sous réserve de la règle
298 et de l’alinéa 385(1)b), les requêtes qui peuvent être commodément
entendues à une séance générale de la Cour fédérale peuvent être présentées à
une telle séance.
(2)
Une demande d’audience peut être faite, sans formalité, à l’administrateur
judiciaire de la Cour d’appel fédérale ou de la Cour fédérale, selon le cas,
pour fixer les date, heure et lieu:
. .
.
b)
de l’audition, par un juge de la Cour fédérale ou un protonotaire, d’une
requête qui sera vraisemblablement de longue durée ou qu’il est indiqué
d’entendre à un autre moment que pendant une séance générale.
. .
.
58.(1)
Une partie peut, par requête, contester toute mesure prise par une autre
partie en invoquant l’inobservation d’une disposition des présentes règles.
(2)
La partie doit présenter sa requête aux termes du paragraphe (1) le plus tôt
possible après avoir pris connaissance de l’irrégularité.
59.
Sous réserve de la règle 57, si la Cour, sur requête présentée en vertu de la
règle 58, conclut à l’inobservation des présentes règles par une partie, elle
peut, par ordonnance:
a)
rejeter la requête dans le cas où le requérant ne l’a pas présentée dans un
délai suffisant — après avoir pris connaissance de l’irrégularité — pour
éviter tout préjudice à l’intimé;
b)
autoriser les modifications nécessaires pour corriger l’irrégularité;
c)
annuler l’instance en tout ou en partie.
60. La Cour peut, à tout moment avant de rendre jugement
dans une instance, signaler à une partie les lacunes que comporte sa preuve
ou les règles qui n’ont pas été observées, le cas échéant, et lui permettre
d’y remédier selon les modalités qu’elle juge équitables.
|
|
317.(1)
A party may request material relevant to an application that is in the
possession of a tribunal whose order is the subject of the application and
not in the possession of the party by serving on the tribunal and filing a
written request, identifying the material requested.
(2) An
applicant may include a request under subsection (1) in its notice of
application.
(3) If an
applicant does not include a request under subsection (1) in its notice of
application, the applicant shall serve the request on the other parties.
318.(1) Within 20
days after service of a request under rule 317, the tribunal shall transmit
(a) a
certified copy of the requested material to the Registry and to the party
making the request; or
(b) where the
material cannot be reproduced, the original material to the Registry.
(2) Where a
tribunal or party objects to a request under rule 317, the tribunal or the
party shall inform all parties and the Administrator, in writing, of the
reasons for the objection.
(3) The Court
may give directions to the parties and to a tribunal as to the procedure for
making submissions with respect to an objection under subsection (2).
(4) The Court
may, after hearing submissions with respect to an objection under subsection
(2), order that a certified copy, or the original, of all or part of the
material requested be forwarded to the Registry.
|
317.
(1) Toute partie peut demander la transmission des documents ou des éléments
matériels pertinents quant à la demande, qu’elle n’a pas mais qui sont en la
possession de l’office fédéral dont l’ordonnance fait l’objet de la demande,
en signifiant à l’office une requête à cet effet puis en la déposant. La
requête précise les documents ou les éléments matériels demandés.
(2)
Un demandeur peut inclure sa demande de transmission de documents dans son
avis de demande.
(3)
Si le demandeur n’inclut pas sa demande de transmission de documents dans son
avis de demande, il est tenu de signifier cette demande aux autres parties.
318.(1) Dans les 20 jours suivant la signification de la demande de
transmission visée à la règle 317, l’office fédéral transmet:
a)
au greffe et à la partie qui en a fait la demande une copie certifiée
conforme des documents en cause;
b)
au greffe les documents qui ne se prêtent pas à la reproduction et les
éléments matériels en cause.
(2)
Si l’office fédéral ou une partie s’opposent à la demande de transmission,
ils informent par écrit toutes les parties et l’administrateur des motifs de
leur opposition.
(3)
La Cour peut donner aux parties et à l’office fédéral des directives sur la
façon de procéder pour présenter des observations au sujet d’une opposition à
la demande de transmission.
(4)
La Cour peut, après avoir entendu les observations sur l’opposition, ordonner
qu’une copie certifiée conforme ou l’original des documents ou que les
éléments matériels soient transmis, en totalité ou en partie, au greffe.
|
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public
Complaints Commission Rules of Practice, S.O.R./97-17:
|
7.(1)
A party or interested person may, in writing, request that any other party or
interested person produce, forthwith, any of the following:
(a) any
pertinent record that is in the person’s possession or control; and
(b) a full and
adequate reply to the request, where the request is for information.
(2) A request referred to in subsection
(1) shall
(a) be
addressed to a party or interested person;
(b) be
delivered or, where the Commission requires that the request be served,
served within the period established by the Commission; and
(c) be filed
in accordance with subsection 5(1) and delivered to the other parties or
interested persons.
(3) In the case of a request for
information, each item of information that is requested shall be numbered
consecutively.
14.(1) A party
or interested person, on request, may obtain a summons in Form 1 set out in
the schedule issued by the Commission and sealed with the Commission’s seal.
(2) A summons
referred to in subsection (1) shall be completed by the party or interested
person on behalf of whom it is issued or the counsel for that party or
interested person and shall contain the information required by Form 1.
(3)
Notwithstanding subsection (2), any party or interested person requiring the
attendance of a witness during the hearing may forward the name and address
of the proposed witness to the Registrar at least seven days before the
witness is required to appear at the hearing, so that the Commission may
issue a summons to that witness.
16.(1)
A party or interested person may bring before the Commission, in writing or
orally, any issue that arises during the proceedings.
(2) A motion shall contain a clear and
concise statement of the facts, the order sought and the grounds therefor.
(3) A written
motion shall be filed with the Registrar or, during the hearing, with the
hearing process officer and shall be served on the parties and the interested
persons to the proceedings.
(4) A motion
may be made orally during the hearing in accordance with the procedure established
by the Commission.
(5) A motion may be disposed of by the
Commission in writing or orally.
22. During
normal business hours, the Commission shall make available to the parties and
interested persons records filed in the course of the proceedings, other than
a hearing in private, and shall permit the persons to make copies thereof.
|
7.(1)
Une partie ou une personne intéressée peut présenter une demande écrite à une
autre partie ou personne intéressée afin que celle-ci produise sans délai,
selon le cas:
a)
une pièce pertinente en sa possession ou sous sa responsabilité;
b)
une réponse satisfaisante et complète, s’il s’agit d’une demande
d’information.
(2)
La demande visée au paragraphe (1):
a)
est adressée à la partie ou à la personne intéressée;
b)
est transmise ou, lorsque la Commission l’exige, signifiée dans le délai fixé
par elle;
c)
déposées conformément au paragraphe 5(1) et transmises aux autres parties et
aux autres personnes intéressées.
(3)
Dans le cas d’une demande d’information, les renseignements demandés sont
numérotés de façon consécutive.
14.(1) Une partie ou une
personne intéressée peut, sur demande, obtenir de la Commission une
assignation à comparaître marquée de son sceau et établie selon la formule 1
figurant à l’annexe.
(2) L’assignation à
comparaître visée au paragraphe (1) est remplie par la partie ou la personne
intéressée qui en fait la demande ou par leur avocat et doit contenir les
renseignements exigés par la formule 1.
(3) Malgré le
paragraphe (2), une partie ou une personne intéressée qui requiert la
comparution d’un témoin à une audience peut transmettre au greffier les nom
et adresse du témoin au moins 7 jours avant que celui-ci soit tenu de
comparaître à l’audience afin que la Commission lui délivre une assignation à
comparaître.
16.(1)
Toute partie ou personne intéressée peut soumettre à la Commission, par écrit
ou verbalement, une question qui survient durant les procédures.
(2)
La requête renferme un énoncé clair et précis des faits et de l’ordonnance
demandée ainsi que des motifs à l’appui.
(3)
La requête écrite est déposée auprès du greffier ou, durant l’audience,
auprès de l’agent d’audience et est signifiée à toutes les parties et les
personnes intéressées.
(4)
Lors de l’audience, la requête peut être communiquée verbalement suivant la
procédure établie par la Commission.
(5)
La Commission peut se prononcer sur la requête par écrit ou verbalement.
22. Durant
les heures normales de travail, la Commission met à la disposition des parties
et des personnes intéressées toute pièce déposée dans le cadre des
procédures, autre qu’une audience à huis clos, et leur permet d’en faire
copie.
|
The Royal
Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-10:
|
45.35(1)
Any member of the public having a complaint concerning the conduct, in the
performance of any duty or function under this Act or the Witness Protection
Program Act, of any member or other person appointed or employed under the
authority of this Act may, whether or not that member of the public is
affected by the subject-matter of the complaint, make a complaint to
(a) the
Commission;
(b) any member
or other person appointed or employed under the authority of this Act; or
(c) the
provincial authority in the province in which the subject-matter of the
complaint arose that is responsible for the receipt and investigation of
complaints by the public against police.
45.36(1)
The Commissioner shall consider whether a complaint under subsection 45.35(1)
can be disposed of informally and, with the consent of the complainant and
the member or other person whose conduct is the subject-matter of the
complaint, may attempt to so dispose of the complaint.
. . .
(4) Where a
complaint is not disposed of informally, the complaint shall be investigated
by the Force in accordance with rules made pursuant to section 45.38.
(5)
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Part, the Commissioner may direct
that no investigation of a complaint under subsection 45.35(1) be commenced
or that an investigation of such a complaint be terminated if, in the
Commissioner’s opinion,
(a) the
complaint is one that could more appropriately be dealt with, initially or
completely, according to a procedure provided under any other Act of
Parliament;
(b) the complaint
is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith; or
(c) having
regard to all the circumstances, investigation or further investigation is
not necessary or reasonably practicable.
45.37(1)
Where the Commission Chairman is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds
to investigate the conduct, in the performance of any duty or function under
this Act, of any member or other person appointed or employed under the
authority of this Act, the Commission Chairman may initiate a complaint in
relation thereto and where the Commission Chairman does so, unless the
context otherwise requires, a reference hereafter in this Part to a
complainant includes a reference to the Commission Chairman.
. . .
(4) A
complaint under subsection (1) shall be investigated by the Force in
accordance with rules made pursuant to section 45.38.
45.41(1) A
complainant under subsection 45.35(1) who is not satisfied with the
disposition of the complaint by the Force or with a direction under
subsection 45.36(5) in respect of the complaint may refer the complaint in
writing to the Commission for review.
(2) Where a
complainant refers a complaint to the Commission pursuant to subsection (1),
(a) the
Commission Chairman shall furnish the Commissioner with a copy of the
complaint; and
(b) the
Commissioner shall furnish the Commission Chairman with the notice under
subsection 45.36(6) or the report under section 45.4 in respect of the
complaint, as the case may be, and such other materials under the control of
the Force as are relevant to the complaint.
45.42 . . .
(3) Where,
after reviewing a complaint, the Commission Chairman is not satisfied with
the disposition of the complaint by the Force or considers that further
inquiry is warranted, the Commission Chairman may
(a) prepare
and send to the Minister and the Commissioner a report in writing setting out
such findings and recommendations with respect to the complaint as the
Commission Chairman sees fit;
(b) request
the Commissioner to conduct a further investigation into the complaint; or
(c)
investigate the complaint further or institute a hearing to inquire into the
complaint.
45.43 . . .
(3) On
completion of an investigation under paragraph 45.42(3)(c) or subsection (1),
the Commission Chairman shall prepare and send to the Minister and the
Commissioner a report in writing setting out such findings and
recommendations with respect to the complaint as the Commission Chairman sees
fit unless the Commission Chairman has instituted, or intends to institute, a
hearing to inquire into the complaint under that paragraph or subsection.
45.45 . . .
(5) The
parties and any other person who satisfies the Commission that the person has
a substantial and direct interest in a complaint before the Commission shall
be afforded a full and ample opportunity, in person or by counsel, to present
evidence, to cross-examine witnesses and to make representations at the
hearing.
. . .
(11) A hearing
to inquire into a complaint shall be held in public, except that the
Commission may order the hearing or any part of the hearing to be held in
private if it is of the opinion that during the course of the hearing any of
the following information will likely be disclosed, namely,
(a)
information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to be
injurious to the defence of Canada or any state allied or associated with
Canada or the detection, prevention or suppression of subversive or hostile
activities;
(b)
information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to be injurious
to law enforcement; and
(c)
information respecting a person’s financial or personal affairs where that
person’s interest or security outweighs the public’s interest in the
information.
. . .
(14) On
completion of a hearing, the Commission shall prepare and send to the
Minister and the Commissioner a report in writing setting out such findings
and recommendations with respect to the complaint as the Commission sees fit.
(15) In this
section and section 45.46, "parties" means the appropriate officer,
the member or other person whose conduct is the subject-matter of a complaint
and, in the case of a complaint under subsection 45.35(1), the complainant.
45.46(1) On
receipt of a report under subsection 45.42(3), 45.43(3) or 45.45(14), the
Commissioner shall review the complaint in light of the findings and
recommendations set out in the report.
(2) After
reviewing a complaint in accordance with subsection (1), the Commissioner
shall notify the Minister and the Commission Chairman in writing of any further
action that has been or will be taken with respect to the complaint, and
where the Commissioner decides not to act on any findings or recommendations
set out in the report, the Commissioner shall include in the notice the
reasons for not so acting.
(3) After
considering a notice under subsection (2), the Commission Chairman shall
prepare and send to the Minister, the Commissioner and the parties a final
report in writing setting out such findings and recommendations with respect
to the complaint as the Commission Chairman sees fit.
|
45.35(1)
Tout membre du public qui a un sujet de plainte concernant la conduite, dans
l’exercice de fonctions prévues à la présente loi ou à la Loi sur le
programme de protection des témoins, d’un membre ou de toute autre personne
nommée ou employée sous le régime de la présente loi peut, qu’il en ait ou
non subi un préjudice, déposer une plainte auprès, selon le cas:
a)
de la Commission;
b)
d’un membre ou de toute autre personne nommée ou employée sous le régime de la
présente loi;
c)
de l’autorité provinciale dans la province d’origine du sujet de plainte,
compétente pour recevoir des plaintes et faire enquête.
45.36(1)
Le commissaire doit considérer si la plainte peut être réglée à l’amiable et,
moyennant le consentement du plaignant et du membre ou de la personne visés
par la plainte, il peut tenter de la régler ainsi.
. .
.
(4)
À défaut d’un tel règlement, la plainte fait l’objet d’une enquête par la
Gendarmerie selon les règles établies en vertu de l’article 45.38.
(5)
Par dérogation aux autres dispositions de la présente partie, le commissaire
peut refuser qu’une plainte fasse l’objet d’une enquête ou ordonner de mettre
fin à une enquête déjà commencée si, à son avis:
a)
il est préférable de recourir, au moins initialement, à une procédure prévue
par une autre loi fédérale;
b)
la plainte est futile ou vexatoire ou a été portée de mauvaise foi;
c)
compte tenu des circonstances, il n’est pas nécessaire ou raisonnablement
praticable de procéder à une enquête ou de poursuivre l’enquête déjà
commencée.
45.37(1)
Le président de la Commission peut porter plainte contre un membre ou toute
autre personne nommée ou employée sous le régime de la présente loi, s’il est
fondé à croire qu’il faudrait enquêter sur la conduite, dans l’exercice de
fonctions prévues à la présente loi, de ce membre ou de cette personne. En
pareil cas, sauf si le contexte s’y oppose, le mot « plaignant »,
employé ci-après dans la présente partie, s’entend en outre du président de la
Commission.
. .
.
(4)
Une plainte portée en vertu du paragraphe (1) fait l’objet d’une enquête
menée par la Gendarmerie selon les règles établies en vertu de l’article
45.38.
45.41(1) Le plaignant visé au
paragraphe 45.35(1) qui n’est pas satisfait du règlement de sa plainte par la
Gendarmerie ou de la décision rendue en vertu du paragraphe 45.36(5) à
l’égard de sa plainte peut renvoyer par écrit sa plainte devant la Commission
pour examen.
(2) En cas de renvoi devant
la Commission conformément au paragraphe (1):
a)
le président de la Commission transmet au commissaire une copie de la
plainte;
b)
le commissaire transmet au président de la Commission l’avis visé au
paragraphe 45.36(6) ou le rapport visé à l’article 45.4 relativement à la
plainte, ainsi que tout autre document pertinent placé sous la responsabilité
de la Gendarmerie.
45.42
. . .
(3)
Après examen de la plainte, le président de la Commission, s’il n’est pas
satisfait de la décision de la Gendarmerie ou s’il est d’avis qu’une enquête
plus approfondie est justifiée, peut:
a)
soit établir et transmettre au ministre et au commissaire un rapport écrit
énonçant les conclusions et les recommandations qu’il estime indiquées;
b)
soit demander au commissaire de tenir une enquête plus approfondie sur la
plainte;
c)
soit tenir une enquête plus approfondie ou convoquer une audience pour
enquêter sur la plainte.
45.43
. . .
(3)
Au terme de l’enquête prévue à l’alinéa 45.42(3)c) ou au paragraphe (1), le
président de la Commission établit et transmet au ministre et au commissaire
un rapport écrit énonçant les conclusions et les recommandations qu’il estime
indiquées, à moins qu’il n’ait déjà convoqué une audience, ou se propose de
le faire, pour faire enquête en vertu de cet alinéa ou paragraphe.
45.45
. . .
(5)
Les parties et toute personne qui convainc la Commission qu’elle a un intérêt
direct et réel dans la plainte dont celle-ci est saisie doivent avoir toute
latitude de présenter des éléments de preuve à l’audience, d’y contre-interroger
les témoins et d’y faire des observations, soit personnellement, soit par
l’intermédiaire d’un avocat.
. .
.
(11)
Les audiences sont publiques; toutefois, la Commission peut ordonner le huis
clos pendant tout ou partie d’une audience si elle estime qu’au cours de
celle-ci seront probablement révélés:
a)
des renseignements dont la divulgation risquerait vraisemblablement de porter
préjudice à la défense du Canada ou d’États alliés ou associés avec le Canada
ou à la détection, à la prévention ou à la répression d’activités hostiles ou
subversives;
b)
des renseignements risquant d’entraver la bonne exécution des lois;
c)
des renseignements concernant les ressources pécuniaires ou la vie privée
d’une personne dans le cas où l’intérêt ou la sécurité de cette personne
l’emporte sur l’intérêt du public dans ces renseignements.
. .
.
(14)
Au terme de l’audience, la Commission établit et transmet au ministre et au
commissaire un rapport écrit énonçant les conclusions et les recommandations
qu’elle estime indiquées.
(15)
Au présent article et à l’article 45.46, «partie » s’entend de l’officier
compétent, du membre ou de l’autre personne dont la conduite est l’objet de
la plainte et, dans le cas d’une plainte en vertu du paragraphe 45.35(1), du
plaignant.
45.46(1) Sur réception du rapport
visé aux paragraphes 45.42(3), 45.43(3) ou 45.45(14), le commissaire révise
la plainte à la lumière des conclusions et des recommandations énoncées au
rapport.
(2) Après révision de la
plainte conformément au paragraphe (1), le commissaire avise, par écrit, le
ministre et le président de la Commission de toute mesure additionnelle prise
ou devant l’être quant à la plainte. S’il choisit de s’écarter des
conclusions ou des recommandations énoncées au rapport, il motive son choix
dans l’avis.
(3)
Après examen de l’avis visé au paragraphe (2), le président de la Commission
établit et transmet au ministre, au commissaire et aux parties un rapport
écrit final énonçant les conclusions et les recommandations qu’il estime
indiquées.
|
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1905-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION
-
and -
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: March 29, 2007
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT OF: O’KEEFE J.
DATED: September 13, 2007
APPEARANCES:
|
Mr. K. Michael Stephens
Ms. Jasmine MacAdam
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
Mr. Alexander Gay
Ms. Agnieszka Zagorskia
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Hunter Litigation Chambers Law
Corporation
Vancouver, British Columbia
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content