RCMP |
Millard v. Canada (Attorney General)
A-495-98
Evans J.
2/3/00
8 pp.
Appeal from Motions Judge's decision granting application for judicial review ((1998), 149 F.T.R. 200)--In 1994 respondent claiming loss under RCMP Relocation Directive of $207,000 as eligible proportion of decline in value from January 1, 1993 to sale in August 1994 of house in Toronto--House owned by Ms. Baker with whom respondent lived in common law relationship since January 1, 1993--Ms. Baker purchased house in 1988, sold house in 1994 at loss--RCMP Commissioner, relying on, adopting findings of Acting Chair of External Review Committee (Ms. Lynch): date of deemed acquisition of house day when respondent ceased to regard house owned in Victoria, previous posting, as principal residence--In allowing judicial review application, Motions Judge holding Ms. Lynch's recognition in reasons of factual situations to which her interpretation not applicable indication "principal interpretative finding" "fundamentally flawed"--Appeal allowed--Motions Judge erred in assuming Ms. Lynch's interpretation of Directive reviewable on standard of correctness--Elements of functional analysis for determining appropriate standard of review applied--(1) That some deference owed to Ms. Lynch's decision suggested by Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, s. 32 providing Commissioner's decision in respect of any grievance final, binding and, except for judicial review under Federal Court Act, not subject to appeal, review by any Court--(2) Nature of decision-making scheme for dealing with grievances also indicating judicial restraint appropriate--Before Commissioner rendering decision on grievance must have been subject of internal "level 1" grievance adjudication and, in absence of waiver by member, report by External Review Committee--Only in most unusual circumstances should reviewing Court intervene in decisions made by series of tribunals specifically designed for task--(3 ) Since Commissioner confirmed findings by External Review Committee, relevant to consider institutional characteristics of Committee, which is expressly empowered to review interpretation of Directive by RCMP Regulations, 1988, s. 36(d)--Committee enjoying degree of independence from RCMP--As permanent, rather than ad hoc body, Committee acquiring considerable experience in interpretation, application of Directive, and entitled to measure of deference--(4) Issues in dispute squarely within expertise of Committee: involve interpretation of Directive, by no means "general law"--(5) Directive appendix to Administrative Manual, administrative quasi-legislation governing various aspects of RCMP members' conduct, rather than either subordinate legislation promulgated under discrete statutory power, or formal contractual document--Policy objectives reimbursement of members for actual, reasonable, legitimate relocation expenses, and to minimize costs to public of relocation of officers--Commissioner's decision relying upon reasoned, detailed findings by External Review Committee interpreting Directive should be subject to minimal judicial scrutiny--Only if decision patently unreasonable should it be set aside--Something to be said for both possible interpretations of Directive recognized by Ms. Lynch--Not patently unreasonable for Commissioner to adopt interpretation preferred by Ms. Lynch--Unusual facts herein not contemplated by drafters of Directive--That Ms. Lynch acknowledging interpretation might require modification in light of different facts not indicating patently unreasonable--Commissioner's decision satisfied minimal standard of "patent unreasonableness"--Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. R-10, s. 32 (as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 65)--Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, 1988, SOR/88-361, s. 36(d) (as am. by SOR/95-535, s. 3).