Anderson v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency)

Anderson v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency)

The Federal Court of Appeal upheld Dawson J.'s interpretation of "recourse" under the CCRA Act and her conclusion on the content of the duty of fairness, finding no breach and no reversible error; therefore the appeal is dismissed with costs.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2004 FCA 126
Parties
Appellant: George Anderson; Respondent: Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Duty of Fairness, Recourse Procedure, Jurisdiction, Interpretation of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Act, Relationship With Public Service Employment Act
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Public Employment Law Statutory Interpretation Duty of Fairness Recourse Procedure Jurisdiction Interpretation of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Act Relationship With Public Service Employment Act

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Anderson

Appellant

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether Dawson J. erred in dismissing the application for judicial review
  2. 2 Proper interpretation of "recourse" in subsections 55(1) and 100(2) of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Act
  3. 3 Whether the duty of procedural fairness was breached in the recourse decision-making process

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Court of Appeal upheld Dawson J.'s interpretation of "recourse" under the CCRA Act and her conclusion on the content of the duty of fairness, finding no breach and no reversible error; therefore the appeal is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order of the Federal Court dated May 29, 2003 upheld