Lamarche v. Canada (Attorney General)
The Board's refusal to permit examination of the respondent about past events that were indubitably highly relevant to the question of anti‑union animus constituted a breach of the rules of natural justice, rendering the Board's decision unsupportable and requiring that the decision be set aside and the matter...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2005 FCA 92
- Parties
- Applicant: Réal Lamarche; Respondent: Attorney General of Canada; Respondent: Yvan Marceau
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 8 March 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review of Administrative Decision / Application for Judicial Review Allowed; Decision Set Aside and Remitted
- Outcome
- Application for judicial review allowed with costs; decision of the Board set aside; matter referred back to the Public Service Staff Relations Board for reconsideration before a differently constituted panel.
- Legal Topics
- Natural Justice, Procedural Fairness, Bias, Union Discrimination, Judicial Review, Remittal
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Réal Lamarche
Applicant
Attorney General of Canada
Respondent
Yvan Marceau
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Administrative Decision / Application for Judicial Review Allowed; Decision Set Aside and Remitted
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Board breached the rules of natural justice by refusing to allow examination of respondent Marceau about past events relevant to alleged anti‑union animus
- 2 Whether evidence of past events was relevant to establish anti‑union animus and affect qualification decision
Ratio Decidendi
The Board's refusal to permit examination of the respondent about past events that were indubitably highly relevant to the question of anti‑union animus constituted a breach of the rules of natural justice, rendering the Board's decision unsupportable and requiring that the decision be set aside and the matter remitted to a differently constituted panel.
Court Disposition
Application for judicial review allowed with costs; decision of the Board set aside; matter referred back to the Public Service Staff Relations Board for reconsideration before a differently constituted panel.
Orders
- Application for judicial review allowed with costs to the applicant
- Decision of the Public Service Staff Relations Board set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Lamarche v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2005-03-08 Neutral citation 2005 FCA 92 File numbers A-281-04 Decision Content Date: 20050308 Docket: A-281-04 Citation: 2005 FCA 92 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. NADON J.A. PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: RÉAL LAMARCHE Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and YVAN MARCEAU Respondents Hearing held at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 8, 2005. Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 8, 2005. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A. Date: 20050308 Docket: A-281-04 Citation: 2005 FCA 92 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. NADON J.A. PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: RÉAL LAMARCHE Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and YVAN MARCEAU Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 8, 2005) NADON J.A. [1] As the issue before the Public Service Staff Relations Board was whether respondent Marceau had refused to qualify the applicant as a candidate because of his union affiliation, it is difficult to understand why the Board refused to allow the applicant to examine the respondent Marceau concerning past events in order to possibly demonstrate an anti-union animus on his part. [2] Unlike the Board, which stated that such evidence would be of little relevance, we are all of the opinion that such evidence is indubitably highly relevant and, indeed, crucial to the issue before the Board, to wit, whether an anti-union animus existed against the applicant. Under the circumstances, the Board's refusal to hear this evidence is a breach of the rules of natural justice (see Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières v. Larocque, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 471, at paragraphs 46 to 52). Consequently, the Board's decision cannot be upheld. [3] For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be allowed with costs, the decision of the Board will be set aside and the matter will be referred back to the Board for reconsideration before a differently constituted panel. "M. Nadon" J.A. Certified true translation Michael Palles FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-281-04 STYLE OF CAUSE: RÉAL LAMARCHE v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and YVAN MARCEAU PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa DATE OF HEARING: March 8, 2005 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: Desjardins, Nadon, and Pelletier JJ.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Nadon J.A. APPEARANCES: Sean McGee Annie Berthiaume FOR THE APPLICANT Stéphane Hould FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Nelligan, O'Brien, Payne LLP Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT John Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT