[2014] 1 F.C.R. D-3
Ethics
Judicial review of decision by Public Sector Integrity Commissioner deciding not to reopen decision by former Commissioner dismissing applicants’ disclosure of wrongdoing against employer Health Canada—Applicants responsible for evaluating drug submissions filed by manufacturers applying for notices of compliance (NOC)—Applicants alleging that some NOCs issued without human safety data, evaluators pressured by supervisors to pass, maintain drugs without such data, disciplined if not favouring pharmaceutical lobby—Former Commissioner deciding to cease investigation into allegations—Finding, inter alia, that allegations rooted in scientific dispute, subject-matter of disclosure relating to public policy debate falling within ambit of Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, S.C. 2005, c. 46 (PSDPA), s. 24(1)(e)—New Commissioner initiating review of disclosure of wrongdoing files to determine whether any meriting to be reopened—Concluding that former Commissioner’s assessment with respect to applicants’ file correct, that former Commissioner acting reasonably in exercising discretion to cease investigation on basis of s. 24(1)(e), that procedural shortcomings not determinative in final outcome—Applicants arguing not open to former Commissioner to rely on s. 24(1)(e) to cease investigation because that decision contrary to spirit of PSDPA, PSDPA’s quasi-constitutional status—New Commissioner committing no error in assessing applicants’ file—No case law affirming PSDPA quasi-constitutional—PSDPA, s. 24 affording several grounds on which Commissioner can rely to refuse to deal with disclosure—Issue at hand whether investigation of approval processes sufficiently thorough—New Commissioner reasonably exercising discretion not to reopen applicants’ file since coming to similar conclusion as former Commissioner, i.e. issue of scientific disagreement at heart of approval process for each drug—Application dismissed.
Chopra v. Canada (Attorney General) (T-452-12, 2013 FC 644, Scott J., reasons for judgment dated June 12, 2013, 30 pp.)