Date:
20100528
Docket:
A-91-09
Citation: 2010
FCA 141
[ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Present: PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
LUC
BEAULNE
Applicant
and
PUBLIC
SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
Respondent
Written motion decided without
appearance of parties.
Order
delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 28, 2010.
REASONS
FOR ORDER BY: PELLETIER
J. A.
Date:
20100528
Docket:
A-91-09
Citation:
2010 FCA 141
Present: PELLETIER
J.A.
BETWEEN:
LUC
BEAULNE
Applicant
and
PUBLIC
SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS
FOR ORDER
PELLETIER
J.A.
[1]
This
is a motion by the respondent, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, to strike
certain portions of Mr. Beaulne’s affidavit, which was filed in support of his
application for judicial review. This motion was unnecessarily challenged by a
motion by Mr. Beaulne to have the respondent’s motion dismissed.
[2] The
respondent’s motion seeks the striking out of various paragraphs of Mr. Beaulne’s
affidavit and related exhibits. Chantal Homier-Nehmé’s affidavit mentions the
various reasons for which the respondent objects to the receipt of the disputed
paragraphs and documents. The affidavit submitted by Mr. Beaulne’s
representative does not contradict any of Ms. Homier-Nehmé’s statements. It is
therefore logical that the facts that she outlines are true.
[3] Mr.
Beaulne is seeking a judicial review of a decision by the Public Service Staff
Relations Board, before which there was an adversarial context. It is settled
case law that the record before the reviewing court is the record that was, or
was compiled, before the lower tribunal (see Association of Architects
(Ont.) v. Association of Architectural Technologists (Ont.), 2002 FCA 218,
[2003] 1 F.C. 331. In general, this case consists of pleadings, exhibits and,
if they exist, transcripts. These elements are submitted to the reviewing court
through the applicant’s affidavit.
[4] In
this case, the applicant’s affidavit contains numerous documents that were not
before the Public Service Staff Relations Board either because it refused to
admit them or because they were created after the hearing before the Board.
None of these documents or paragraphs of Mr. Beaulne’s affidavit referenced
therein, listed in the draft order in Tab 15 of the applicant’s record, are
admissible for the purposes of the application for judicial review.
[5] There
will therefore be an order that the Registry strike the following portions of
Mr. Beaulne’s affidavit by deleting them with black pencil:
- Exhibits 7,
11, 12(a) and pages 76 and 77 of Exhibit 8;
- Exhibits 12(b)
14, 15, 16, 17 and 20;
- Paragraphs 5,
6, 10 and 18 of the affidavit.
[6] Given
the respondent’s delay in objecting to these irregularities, there shall be no
order with respect to costs.
“J.D.
Denis Pelletier”
FEDERAL COURT OF
APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-91-09
STYLE OF CAUSE: LUC
BEAULNE and PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
WRITTEN
MOTION DECIDED WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PELLETIER J.A.
DATED: MAY 28, 2010
WRITTEN
REPRESENTATIONS BY:
|
ROBERT DOUCET
|
FOR
THE APPLICANT
|
|
JAMES CAMERON
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
|
CENTRE HOSPITALIER MÉMORIAL DE WAKEFIELD
WAKEFIELD,
QUÉBEC
|
FOR
THE APPLICANT
|
|
RAVEN, CAMERON, BALLANTYNE
& YAZBECK LLP
OTTAWA,
ONTARIO
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|