Date: 20010620
Docket: A-670-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 206
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
JACK MAURICE
Appellant
AND
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Hearing held at Montreal, Quebec, Tuesday, June 19, 2001
Judgment delivered at Montreal, Quebec,
on Wednesday, June 20, 2001
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: DÉCARY J.A.
NOËL J.A.
The CSS was correct in denying the applicant's grievance on the ground that it was non grievable for having previously been addressed. This Court does not have jurisdiction to determine if earlier responses in other grievances were made without jurisdiction because these decisions are not the object of the present application.
[3] Counsel for the respondent supports the decision of the motions judge. He submits that the grievance committee concluded that the appellant's grievance was non grievable and dismissed it for that reason. I do not agree with this understanding of what the committee actually did. I believe, as I shall explain, that the committee in fact adjudicated upon the merits of the grievance.
[4] The appellant was, in his application for judicial review, attacking the grievance committee's decision on two grounds. First, he was challenging the committee's finding that there was no evidence to support his allegation of bad faith on the part of either the Regional Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner, Corporate Development. Second, he was contesting the committee's refusal to accede to his request for a vegetarian diet.
[5] As far as the appellant's claim for a vegetarian diet is concerned, a reading of the grievance committee's decision reveals that, for all purposes, the committee decided the grievance submitted by the appellant by endorsing and reiterating its previous reasons for denying the request which were based on the Institution's policy in these matters. These reasons given in support of a previous decision rendered on March 16, 1999 by the third level of adjudication read in part:
You subsequently received a second level response on February 12, 1999 that stated you would not be given further consideration for a special vegetarian diet unless there were legitimate medical or religious grounds for doing so. ... CCS, however, is respecting the law when denying your request for a special vegetarian diet, if there is no legitimate medical or religious requirements.
Therefore, the present decision under attack by way of judicial review contained by incorporation the previous grounds for refusing the claim. Thus, the motions judge had jurisdiction to review the legality of that aspect of the committee's decision.
[6] That the grievance committee ruled upon the appellant's grievance is also evidenced by the fact that it rejected the appellant's allegation of bad faith on the part of the authorities. Yet, the motions judge omitted to address this issue and, as requested, review the legality of that adverse finding made by the committee.
[7] For these reasons, I would allow the appeal, set aside the decision of the motions judge and refer the matter back to the Trial Division for a hearing of the appellant's application for judicial review. The appellant will be entitled to his disbursements in this appeal in the amount of $900.00.
"Gilles Létourneau"
J.A.
"I agree
Robert Décary J.A."
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-670-00
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
STYLE OF CAUSE: JACK MAURICE
Appellant
AND
ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF CANADA
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: June 19, 2001
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LÉTOURNEAU, J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: DÉCARY J.A.
NOËL J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Jack Maurice
representing himself FOR THE APPELLANT
Me Éric Lafrenière FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montreal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT
Email this Content