Ross v. Warden of Bowden Institution #2

Ross v. Warden of Bowden Institution #2

The motion to dismiss is denied because the judicial review raises debatable questions, including whether relief under s.18.1(3) could entitle the applicant to reimbursement for lost pay; the application is not so clearly improper as to be bereft of any possibility of success and the issues should be decided at the hearing on the merits.

Citation
2002 FCT 360
Parties
Respondent (applicant): Arthur Ross; Applicant (respondent): The Warden of Bowden Institution #2; Applicant (respondent): The Director of Inmate Affairs Ottawa; Applicant (respondent): Mr. Yvan Zhibault; Applicant (respondent): Christine Lachance
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (federal Court Act S.18.1) / Rule 369(1) Written Motion to Dismiss (pre Hearing)
Outcome
Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Remedies, Damages, Retroactivity, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Judicial Review Corrections Law Labour and Employment Jurisdiction Remedies Damages Retroactivity +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arthur Ross

Respondent (applicant)

The Warden of Bowden Institution #2

Applicant (respondent)

The Director of Inmate Affairs Ottawa

Applicant (respondent)

Mr. Yvan Zhibault

Applicant (respondent)

Christine Lachance

Applicant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (federal Court Act S.18.1) / Rule 369(1) Written Motion to Dismiss (pre Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judicial review application is so clearly improper as to be bereft of any possibility of success
  2. 2 Whether the Federal Court has authority under s.18.1(3) of the Federal Court Act to award damages
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is seeking relief available under s.18.1(3) such as declaring the impugned decision invalid and remitting the matter

Ratio Decidendi

The motion to dismiss is denied because the judicial review raises debatable questions, including whether relief under s.18.1(3) could entitle the applicant to reimbursement for lost pay; the application is not so clearly improper as to be bereft of any possibility of success and the issues should be decided at the hearing on the merits.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed

Orders

  • Respondents' motion to dismiss the judicial review application is dismissed.