Jones v. Canada ( Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission )
T-1313-98
Reed J.
20/7/98
13 pp.
Judicial review of RCMP Public Complaints Commission's refusal to order payment of funds to applicants to allow them to be represented by counsel before it, or to recommend federal government provide such funding-Complainants alleging improper conduct by RCMP members at student demonstrations in opposition to Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Conference-Not entitled to legal aid-RCMP, individual members have publicly funded counsel representing them before Commission-Applicants asserting denial of funding to pay counsel essentially denial of right to counsel-Imbalance, if required to testify, undergo cross-examination, will lead to unfair hearing, potential damage to reputations-Commission refusing to recommend federal government funding as could (1) compromise duty of impartiality; (2) intrude on Parliament's exclusive power to legislate entitlement sought-Application allowed-Commission operating on misunderstanding of law-(1) Impartiality not compromised as other side already fully funded by federal government-Solution to make neutral recommendation all parties be so funded, although unnecessary-(2) As merely recommendation, not "intrusion"-As recommendation would be made to executive branch of government, not Parliament, no intrusion on Parliament's authority by seeking funding-That constituent statute not expressly conferring on Commission authority to make such recommendations, not leading to inference Parliament not intending to grant such authority-Only inference Parliament not dealing with matter-Inquiry expected to be unusually long, involving voluminous evidence, complex, important issues-Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, s. 45.45(5) imposing obligation on Commission to ensure parties afforded "full and ample opportunity" to present evidence, crossexamine witnesses, make representation-If Commission considering that for purposes of present inquiry "full and ample opportunity" best achieved by complainants having counsel, then open to Commission to recommend state fund counsel-While complainant initiating proceeding, acting as representative of public interest-Public interest in ensuring police not overstep bounds of proper conduct as important as RCMP members' private interests in jobs, reputations-Nature of proceedings not indicating Commission should not be concerned with legal representation of complainants-Theoretically proceedings not adversarial-But Commission cannot convert inquiry into purely investigative proceeding; nor can it prevent presence of counsel acting on behalf of individuals appearing before it or cross-examination of witnesses-That many students likely to be called as witnesses, request counsel, not persuasive argument-Consideration should be whether legal representation of complainants would improve quality of proceedings-Equality in representation usually resulting in easier, better decision-making-Decision quashed and declaration issued Commission having authority to make recommendation funding be provided if it so desires-Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. R-10, s. 45.45(5) (as enacted by R.S.C., 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 8, s. 16).