RCMP |
Jaworski v. Canada (Attorney General)
A-508-98
Evans J.A.
9/5/00
30 pp.
Appeal from Trial Division decision ([1998] 4 F.C. 154) dismissing application for judicial review of RCMP Commissioner's decision dismissing appellant from employment for misconduct--Principal question whether on evidence before him, including identification evidence based on flawed process, open to RCMP Commissioner to find clear and cogent evidence to justify appellant's dismissal from Force for misconduct that could have been subject of criminal proceedings--In making decision, Commissioner confirmed adjudication board decision and did not accept External Review Committee's report which had found palpable and overriding error in board's findings of fact, particularly with regard to identification of appellant as man whom witness had seen masturbating in public view--High standard of justice required when right to continue in one's profession or employment at stake: Kane v. Board of Governors (University of British Columbia), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1105--Appeal dismissed--As to Commissioner's decision evidence before adjudication board clear and convincing, and thus satisfied legal standard of proof, standard of review that appellant must establish decision based on erroneous finding of fact made in perverse or capricious manner or without regard for material before it: Federal Court Act, s. 18.1(4)(d)--On basis of evidence, together with time and place of incidents, cannot be said that board's finding appellant's presence more than coincidence error of fact made without regard to evidence or perverse or capricious--Most of other discrepancies in evidence noted by board, which nonetheless concluded that, taken as whole, descriptive evidence had significant probative value--Conclusion reasonably open to board on evidence before it--As to identification evidence, board had to be satisfied on balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt, and standard of review by this Court to findings of fact made by administrative tribunals that of perverse or capricious, or made without regard to evidence, not that of unreasonable or insupportable on evidence--Considering evidence before adjudication board in totality, and standard of proof and narrow scope of review exercisable by Court over administrative findings of fact, board's decision not perverse or capricious, or made without regard to material before it--Commissioner's reasons for confirming board's decision, and for not acting on findings contained in Committee's report, satisfy statutory duty to give reasons--Since reasons full enough to serve essential functions served by duty to give reasons, not inadequate in law--Commissioner's reasons in effect saying that, in concentrating its attention on pieces of evidence individually, Committee lost sight of big picture while board considered evidence as whole and based its decision on totality of material before it, without ignoring weaknesses of some of component parts--In circumstances, Commissioner not required to rebut each of points on which Committee had taken issue with board--Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 18.1(4)(d) (as enacted by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 5).