Ebadi v. Canada

Ebadi v. Canada

The action was struck because, as a matter of law and on the pleaded facts, it was plain and obvious the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction: the FPSLRA ss.208 and 236 provide a comprehensive grievance remedy in lieu of a court action for disputes affecting terms and conditions of employment (including harassment, discrimination and Charter claims), the ATIA allegations improperly sought to litigate an exclusive statutory scheme and constituted an abuse of process, and no residual jurisdictionary gap justified permitting the claim to proceed.

Citation
2022 FC 834
Parties
Plaintiff: Sameer Ebadi; Defendants: Her Majesty the Queen; James Doe; John Doe; Joseph Doe; Jane Doe; Julie Doe; David Vigneault
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment / Civil Claim (charter and Tort) / Motion to Strike for Want of Jurisdiction (rule 221)
Outcome
Action struck for want of jurisdiction, without leave to amend; costs awarded to Defendants.
Legal Topics
Grievance Procedure, Jurisdictional Bar, Charter Remedies, Workplace Harassment and Discrimination, Access to Information Act Procedure
Source Language
English
Employment Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Tort Law Labour Relations Law Grievance Procedure Jurisdictional Bar Charter Remedies +2 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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sameer Ebadi

Plaintiff

Her Majesty the Queen; James Doe; John Doe; Joseph Doe; Jane Doe; Julie Doe; David Vigneault

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Employment / Civil Claim (charter and Tort) / Motion to Strike for Want of Jurisdiction (rule 221)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Federal Court lacks jurisdiction under FPSLRA ss.208 and 236 because the claims are grievable
  2. 2 Whether allegations relating to the Access to Information Act constitute an abuse of process and must be struck
  3. 3 Whether claims against Director David Vigneault disclose a cause of action

Ratio Decidendi

The action was struck because, as a matter of law and on the pleaded facts, it was plain and obvious the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction: the FPSLRA ss.208 and 236 provide a comprehensive grievance remedy in lieu of a court action for disputes affecting terms and conditions of employment (including harassment, discrimination and Charter claims), the ATIA allegations improperly sought to litigate an exclusive statutory scheme and constituted an abuse of process, and no residual jurisdictionary gap justified permitting the claim to proceed.

Court Disposition

Action struck for want of jurisdiction, without leave to amend; costs awarded to Defendants.

Orders

  • Action struck for want of jurisdiction, without leave to amend.
  • Plaintiff to pay Defendants costs in the all‑inclusive lump sum amount of $5,000.00.