Wedge v. Canada ( Attorney General )
T-2812-94
MacKay J.
23/6/97
13 pp.
Application for judicial review of Governor in Council decision terminating applicant's appointment as member of Veterans Appeal Board on ground applicant's conduct during 1993 P.E.I. provincial election incompatible with requirement of good behaviour-Appointment during good behaviour-RCMP investigation into whether applicant and others involved in irregularities in P.E.I. election concluded no evidence of offences and no criminal or other charges laid-In May 1994, applicant received letter from Privy Council Office expressing concern regarding suitability to remain member of VAB-Allegations applicant had assisted and encouraged individuals to vote in election when knew ineligible to do so-Letter enclosed copy of private investigators' report for Department of Justice-Letter advised applicant meeting had been scheduled to hear comments with respect to whether alleged conduct consistent with good behaviour-Meeting held June 9, 1994-Written submissions made-In September 1994, report to Privy Council completed-Applicant provided with copy and invited to make submissions thereon-Applicant expressed concern regarding manner investigation conducted, particularly completion of investigation report, as well as finding of final report-Applicant submitted: (1) denied procedural fairness in view of manner in which investigation conducted and of fact final report relied on statements from witnesses not given opportunity to confront or cross-examine; (2) Governor in Council erred by improperly delegating decision-making authority to its subordinates, in particular by basing its decision on Bloodworth-Whalen report and on recommendation of Minister of Veterans Affairs; (3) Governor in Council erred by applying wrong standard of good behaviour-Application dismissed -No breach of procedural fairness-(1) Applicant given opportunity to respond on both reports, and did, at June 9 meeting-Applicant not entitled to cross-examine witnesses interviewed as investigation not adjudicative process to which procedures normally associated with criminal proceeding, such as cross-examination, should apply-(2) Governor in Council did not improperly delegate decision-making authority to subordinates-Procedural propriety of such reliance on staff as source of advice recognized by S.C.C. in Attorney General of Canada v. Inuit Tapirisat of Canada et al., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735-(3) Decision applicant's conduct not consistent with good behaviour involved no reviewable error-Veterans Appeal Board Act, s. 4(4) empowering Governor in Council in its discretion to remove member of VAB at any time for cause-No evidence Governor in Council improperly exercised discretion herein-In order to determine whether holder of public office meeting standard of good behaviour necessary to remain in office, Governor in Council must examine conduct to assess whether consistent with measure of integrity Governor in Council deems necessary to maintain public confidence in federal institutions and federal appointment process-Argument Cabinet improperly applied judicial standard of good behaviour to applicant's conduct not sustainable-No standard or definition of "good behaviour" or "cause" provided in Act itself-In determining whether "cause" exists, Governor in Council entitled to assess whether conduct of applicant consistent with terms of appointment to office, including whether conduct could undermine public confidence in federal institution with which had been appointed to serve-As appointed to public office involving quasi-judicial functions, applicant had been placed in position of public trust and confidence-Not for Court to limit scope of discretion vested by Parliament in Governor in Council-Open to Governor in Council herein to consider off-duty activities of applicant, other than those directly involving work, and public perception of those, in determining whether conduct consistent with good behaviour required of position-As stated in Canada (Attorney General) v. Cormier (1995), 102 F.T.R. 291 (F.C.T.D.), as holder of public office, applicant has responsibility to act in manner consistent with terms of his appointment; his behaviour, either in professional or personal life, has consequences on how public perceives him-Veterans Appeal Board Act, R.S.C., 1985 (3rd Supp.), c. 20, s. 4(4).