Deigan v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002 FCA 273

Date: 20020624

Docket: A-240-01

Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 273

CORAM:        LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

ROTHSTEIN J.A.

SHARLOW J.A.

BETWEEN:

                                                              RUSSEL DEIGAN

                                                                                                                                            Appellant

                                                                                                                                          (Applicant)

                                                                           and

                                             ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

                                                               (Industry Canada)                                            Respondent

                                   Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on June 24, 2002.

            Judgment delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on June 24, 2002..

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:             ROTHSTEIN J.A.                               

Date: 20020625

Docket: A-240-01

Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 273

CORAM:        LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

ROTHSTEIN J.A.

SHARLOW J.A.

BETWEEN:

                                                              RUSSEL DEIGAN

                                                                                                                                            Appellant

                                                                                                                                          (Applicant)

                                                                           and

                                             ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

                                                               (Industry Canada)                                            Respondent

                                     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

[1]                We are not persuaded that the decision of the Motions Judge disposes any error that warrants the intervention of this Court. It is our view that the Motions Judge correctly reviewed the arbitrator's decision on the standard of patent unreasonableness and correctly found that there was no basis for interfering with the arbitrator's decision. The appeal should be dismissed.

[2]                The Attorney General asks for costs on an increased scale. In our opinion, increased costs are warranted on this appeal because the appellant, who represented himself, was not truthful in this Court.

[3]                In her reasons, the arbitrator noted that counsel for the appellant did not dispute that the appellant's behaviour was reprehensible and deserving of some disciplinary action. Before this Court the appellant denied that his counsel before the arbitrator conceded that his behaviour was reprehensible. He also alleged that the arbitrator distorted counsel's concession that some disciplinary sanction was warranted. In the judicial review proceedings from the arbitrator's decision, an affidavit of that counsel, who is an experience labour lawyer, was filed. There is no indication in that affidavit that the arbitrator did not correctly characterize the concession made by counsel. We are of the opinion that the appellant was not being truthful about the concession made by counsel.

[4]                In his submission before this Court, the appellant submitted that a harassment complaint he had made against a fellow employee had been found to be justified. Yet when he was asked for a reference to documentation, such as an award of an arbitrator or adjudicator, he had to concede that no documentation existed and that he was only referring to an oral discussion he had with an investigator in the context of proceedings that were never concluded. He was not truthful before this Court.

[5]                The respondent is awarded costs of $6,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

                                                                                                                    (Sgd. " Gilles Létourneau "

                                                                                                                                                      J.A.

                                                                                                                  (Sgd. "Marshall Rothstein "

                                                                                                                                                      J.A.

                                                                                                                  (Sgd. " Karen R. Sharlow "

                                                                                                                                                      J.A.

                                                  FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITOR OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                           A-240-01

STYLE OF CAUSE:             Russell Deigan v. A. G. C. (Industry Canada)

PLACE OF HEARING :                    Vancouver, B. C.

DATE OF HEARING :                      June 24, 2002

REASONS OF JUDGMENT :          THE COURT

DATED:                                              June 25, 2002

APPEARANCES :

M. Russell Deigan                                                          FOR THE APPELLANT

M. Richard Fagan                                                          FOR THE RESPONDENT

AVOCATS INSCRITS AU DOSSIER :

M. Russell Deigan                                                          FOR THE APPELLANT

M. Morris Rosenberg                                                    FOR THE RESPONDENT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada