Holita v. Canada (Attorney General)
- Citation
- 2024 FC 731
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 13 May 2024
- Posture
- Judicial Review / Consent Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 13 May 2024
- Posture
- Judicial Review / Consent Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Because the parties consented and the court found that granting the relief was in the interests of justice and judicial economy, the court granted the application for judicial review, set aside ESDC’s acceptance of the investigative report, and remitted the matter for redetermination after a new investigation by a different investigator with an opportunity for the applicant to see and make submissions on evidence gathered in her absence; costs of $3,500 were awarded to the applicant.
Court disposition
Application for judicial review granted by consent
Orders
- The application for judicial review is granted.
- The ESDC’s decision accepting the investigative report arising from the Applicant’s workplace harassment and violence complaint is set aside.
- The matter is referred back to ESDC for redetermination after a new investigation is conducted by a different investigator and after the Applicant has had the opportunity to see and make submissions on evidence gathered in her absence before any report is sent to ESDC.
- The Respondent shall pay the Applicant $3,500.00 as her all-inclusive costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Susan Holita
Applicant Counsel: Morgan Rowe; Rohoma Zakir; RavenLaw LLPAttorney General of Canada
Respondent Counsel: Jena Montgomery; Attorney General of CanadaAmounts and remedies
- Costs Awarded to Applicant: CAD 3,500
03
Procedural history
Posture
Judicial Review / Consent Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the ESDC decision accepting the investigative report complied with procedural fairness
- 02
Whether the investigative report should be set aside and the matter remitted for a new investigation by a different investigator
- 03
What remedial orders and costs are appropriate where parties consent and interests of justice require redetermination
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant applied for judicial review seeking setting aside of ESDC’s acceptance of an investigative report arising from her workplace harassment and violence complaint, a new investigation by a different investigator, an opportunity to see and make submissions on evidence gathered in her absence prior to any report being sent to ESDC, and costs.
- Respondent
- Respondent (Attorney General of Canada) consented to the relief sought by the applicant and requested a consent judgment granting the application, setting aside the decision, remitting the matter for redetermination with a new investigator and providing the applicant the opportunity to see and make submissions on evidence, and agreed to pay costs.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Consent judgment (Federal Court order May 13, 2024)
Where parties consent and it is in the interests of justice and judicial economy, the court may grant relief by consent.
- 02
Court order referencing procedural fairness in investigative process
Procedural fairness requires that an affected party have the opportunity to see and make submissions on evidence gathered in their absence before an administrative decision relying on that evidence is finalized.
- 03
Federal Court remedial principles and practice
On judicial review, remedies can include setting aside the impugned administrative decision and remitting the matter for redetermination by a differently constituted decision-maker or after a fresh investigation.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Because the parties consented and the court found that granting the relief was in the interests of justice and judicial economy, the court granted the application for judicial review, set aside ESDC’s acceptance of the investigative report, and remitted the matter for redetermination after a new investigation by a different investigator with an opportunity for the applicant to see and make submissions on evidence gathered in her absence; costs of $3,500 were awarded to the applicant.
Obiter and limits
- Court noted the matter was considered pursuant to Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules and emphasized efficiency and justice in approving the consent disposition.
Court disposition
Application for judicial review granted by consent
- The application for judicial review is granted.
- The ESDC’s decision accepting the investigative report arising from the Applicant’s workplace harassment and violence complaint is set aside.
- The matter is referred back to ESDC for redetermination after a new investigation is conducted by a different investigator and after the Applicant has had the opportunity to see and make submissions on evidence gathered in her absence before any report is sent to ESDC.
- The Respondent shall pay the Applicant $3,500.00 as her all-inclusive costs.
Source and reliance status
Federal Court · 13 May 2024
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Federal Court
Judgment· 13 May 2024
Holita v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2024-05-13 Neutral citation 2024 FC 731 File numbers T-2712-22 Decision Content Date: 20240513 Docket: T-2712-22 Citation: 2024 FC 731 Ottawa, Ontario , May 13, 2024 PRESENT: Mr. Justice Pentney BETWEEN:
SUSAN HOLITA Applicant and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent
CONSENT JUDGMENT UPON correspondence dated May 10, 2024 from the Respondent for a Judgment on consent of the parties granting the application for judicial review; AND UPON reading the correspondence and noting the consent of the parties by their respective solicitors; CONSIDERING that it would be in the interests of justice and economy of judicial resources to grant the relief sought; THIS COURT ORDERS that: 1. The application for judicial review is granted.
2. The ESDC’s decision accepting the investigative report arising from the Applicant’s work place harassment and violence complaint is set aside.
3. The matter is referred back to ESDC for redetermination after a new investigation is conducted by a different investigator and after the Applicant has had the opportunity to see and make submissions on evidence gathered in her absence before any report is sent to ESDC.
4. The Respondent shall pay the Applicant $3,500.00 as her all-inclusive costs. "William F. Pentney" Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: T-2712-22 STYLE OF CAUSE: SUSAN HOLITA v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES CONSENT JUDGMENT: PENTNEY J. DATED: MAY 13, 2024 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: Morgan Rowe Rohoma Zakir For The Applicant Jena Montgomery For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: RAVENLAW LLP/s.r.l. Barristers and Solicitors Ottawa, Ontario
FOR THE APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario For The Respondent
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.