Date: 20130619
Docket: A-86-12
Citation: 2013 FCA 161
CORAM: TRUDEL
J.A.
STRATAS J.A.
MAINVILLE
J.A.
BETWEEN:
CHRISTOPHER BENNETT
Appellant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CANADA
and
THE MINISTER OF HEALTH FOR CANADA
Respondents
Heard at Vancouver, B ritish Columbia, on May 15, 2013.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 19, 2013.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: THE
COURT
Date: 20130619
Docket: A-86-12
Citation: 2013 FCA 161
CORAM: TRUDEL
J.A.
STRATAS J.A.
MAINVILLE
J.A.
BETWEEN:
CHRISTOPHER BENNETT
Appellant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CANADA
and
THE MINISTER OF HEALTH FOR CANADA
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT
[1]
This
is an appeal from the judgment dated November 15, 2011 of the Federal Court (per
Shore J.): 2011 FC 1310.
[2]
The
Federal Court judge copied, without attribution, 144 of 152 paragraphs of his
reasons for judgment from the respondents’ memorandum of fact and law. In this
Court, the appellant invokes this as one of his grounds of appeal.
[3]
Soon
after the hearing of this appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada gave direction on
when that sort of practice will vitiate a judgment: Cojocaru v. British
Columbia Women’s Hospital and Health Centre, 2013 SCC 30. We invited the
parties to offer written submissions on Cojocaru. We have received and
considered those submissions.
[4]
In
the circumstances, we need not deal with that ground of appeal. The appeal must
be allowed on another ground.
[5]
In
this case, a key issue is whether the appellant’s beliefs and activities
concerning cannabis constitute a religious practice protected by the guarantee
of freedom of religion under subsection 2(a) of the Charter, as opposed
to a secular practice or lifestyle choice.
[6]
The
reasons for judgment show conflicting factual findings on that key issue. At
the beginning of his reasons, the judge writes, as original prose, that “[i]t
is not for a Court to affirm or deny a revelatory experience,” suggesting some
acceptance that there was some element of spirituality or spiritual epiphany
surrounding the appellant’s beliefs and activities: Reasons, paragraph 1.
Later, however, the judge reproduces, as copied prose, that the appellant’s
beliefs and activities were matters of “lifestyle” and “secular lifestyle
choice[s]”: Ibid., paragraphs 46 and 95.
[7]
We
exercise our discretion against resolving these conflicting factual findings ourselves.
Accordingly, we would allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Federal
Court, and remit this matter to the Chief Justice of the Federal Court for
assignment to a different judge of the Federal Court. That judge is to
redetermine this matter on the basis of the existing evidentiary record, or for
redetermination on the basis of this record and such additional evidence as the
judge, in her or his discretion, may admit. In the circumstances, there shall
be no costs here and below.
"Johanne
Trudel"
"David
Stratas"
"Robert M.
Mainville"
FEDERAL COURT OF
APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-86-12
APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE SHORE DATED NOVEMBER 15, 2011, NO. T-1073-09
STYLE OF CAUSE: Christopher
Bennett v. The Attorney General for Canada et al.
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: May
15, 2013
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BY THE COURT: Trudel,
Stratas and Mainville, JJ.A.
DATED: June
19, 2013
APPEARANCES:
|
Kirk
Tousaw
|
FOR THE APPELLANT
|
|
B.J.
Wray
Sally
Rudolf
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENTS
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Law
Office of Kirk Tousaw
Cobble
Hill,
British Columbia
|
FOR THE APPELLANT
|
|
William
F. Pentney
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENTS
|