Canada (Attorney General) v. Ménard
The Commissioner erred by confirming a Board decision that improperly deferred to supervisors and evaluators rather than performing the objective evidentiary assessment required by s.45.21 of the RCMP Act; the Commissioner should have intervened and corrected that error, and the Federal Court’s quashing of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2019 FCA 297
- Parties
- Appellant: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA; Respondent: ANIKE MÉNARD
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 2 December 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal From Federal Court Judicial Review of RCMP Discharge and Demotion Board Decision / Decision on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part; Federal Court decision corrected; the decision of the Commissioner quashed and matter remitted to the Commissioner to reconsider suitability; costs awarded to the respondent.
- Legal Topics
- Deference to Non‑adjudicative Evidence, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review, Remedies and Remittance
- 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
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Appellant
ANIKE MÉNARD
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Federal Court Judicial Review of RCMP Discharge and Demotion Board Decision / Decision on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Board improperly deferred to supervisors and evaluators rather than objectively assessing evidence
- 2 Whether the Commissioner erred in confirming the Board’s decision despite the Board’s improper deference
- 3 Whether the Federal Court correctly quashed the Commissioner’s decision
Ratio Decidendi
The Commissioner erred by confirming a Board decision that improperly deferred to supervisors and evaluators rather than performing the objective evidentiary assessment required by s.45.21 of the RCMP Act; the Commissioner should have intervened and corrected that error, and the Federal Court’s quashing of the Commissioner’s decision is upheld.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part; Federal Court decision corrected; the decision of the Commissioner quashed and matter remitted to the Commissioner to reconsider suitability; costs awarded to the respondent.
Orders
- The application for judicial review is allowed with costs
- The decision of the Commissioner is quashed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Canada (Attorney General) v. Ménard Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2019-12-02 Neutral citation 2019 FCA 297 File numbers A-42-19 Decision Content Date: 20191202 Docket: A-42-19 Citation: 2019 FCA 297 [ENGLISH TRANSLATION] CORAM: NADON J.A. BOIVIN J.A. LOCKE J.A. BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Appellant and ANIKE MÉNARD Respondent Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on December 2, 2019. Judgment delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on December 2, 2019. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A. Date: 20191202 Docket: A-42-19 Citation: 2019 FCA 297 CORAM: NADON J.A. BOIVIN J.A. LOCKE J.A. BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Appellant and ANIKE MÉNARD Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on December 2, 2019.) NADON J.A. [1] While we are unable to fully endorse the reasoning of Justice Bell of the Federal Court, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (the Commissioner) erred in confirming the May 21, 2013 decision of the discharge and demotion board (the Board), in which the Board stated that it had to defer [translation] “to the supervisors and evaluators of the member [the respondent] who were in the field and who had particular knowledge of the day-to-day work of the RCMP officers assigned to general services in New Brunswick” (Decision at paragraph 89). [2] Since the Board’s role was to objectively assess the evidence before it (section 45.21 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-10), there was no question of its deferring with regard to the evidence and testimony from the respondent’s supervisors and evaluators. [3] In our view, the Commissioner should have intervened and corrected the Board’s error. Consequently, the Judge’s decision to set aside the Commissioner’s decision will be upheld. [4] Furthermore, since the Judge could not set aside the Board’s decision, as it was not the subject of the application for judicial review before him, the appeal will be allowed in part, with costs to the respondent, in order to correct the Federal Court’s judgment (2018 FC 1260), which will read as follows: The application for judicial review is allowed with costs; The decision of the Commissioner is quashed; The Commissioner shall reconsider the issue of Constable Ménard’s suitability; The style of cause for the case is amended to strike the name of the ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE as a respondent; “M. Nadon” J.A. Certified true translation Erich Klein FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: A-42-19 STYLE OF CAUSE: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA v. ANIKE MÉNARD PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: December 2, 2019 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A. BOIVIN J.A. LOCKE J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: NADON J.A. APPEARANCES: Nadia Hudon FOR THE APPELLANT Jean-François Longtin FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Nathalie G. Drouin Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE APPELLANT BÉLANGER LONGTIN s.e.n.c.r.l. Montréal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT