[2012] 3 F.C.R. D-11
ARMED FORCES
Appeal from Federal Court decision (2011 FC 600) dismissing judicial review of Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) decision granting partial relief following grievance challenging appellant’s early repatriation to Canada—CDS concluding that procedural fairness disregarded in process leading to repatriation, but that CDS having no authority in grievance process to award financial compensation—Directing that personnel report be removed from appellant’s file, that certain expenses related to appellant’s relocation be reimbursed, that appellant be considered for posting if appropriate operational deployment opportunity arose—First issue whether relief granted reasonable—Appellant arguing Federal Court erred in concluding there was no evidence on record suggesting appellant was unfit for future deployment—However, appellant failing to raise medical limitations in timely fashion—In such circumstances, no reviewable error in Federal Court Judge’s ruling that relief granted reasonable—Second issue whether Federal Court Judge erred in refusing to direct appellant’s application be treated, proceeded with as action—Broad approach to treatment of applications as actions pursuant to Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 18.4(2) appropriate in order to promote, facilitate access to justice, avoid unnecessary costs, delays, uncertainties for litigants seeking various types of relief against Crown—In present instance, Federal Court Judge erred in deciding to hear, adjudicate merits of administrative law issues while simultaneously discarding request to pursue proceedings as action—Proper course was to adjourn judicial review, direct appellant to submit motion requesting application be treated, proceeded with as action—Appeal allowed in part.
Meggeson v. Canada (Attorney General) (A-242-11, 2012 FCA 175, Mainville J.A., judgment dated June 13, 2012, 16 pp.)