Dupuis v. Canada
T-1857-95
Teitelbaum J.
19/6/96
13 pp.
RCMP-Application for judicial review for order respondents pay applicant, RCMP member, bilingualism bonus-RCMP refusing, grievance against refusal dismissed (by Level II adjudicator)-Applicant occupying position designated bilingual, meeting language skill requirements-Court previously declaring RCMP members entitled to receive bonus (Gingras v. Canada, [1990] 2 F.C. 68 (T.D.)), retroactive in accordance with five-year prescription period applicable in Quebec-That decision affirmed by Court of Appeal ([1994] 2 F.C. 734 (C.A.)), Décary J.A. mentioning, obiter, applicable prescription period should probably have been six years in accordance with Federal Court Act, s. 38(1)-Following decision, government deciding to apply six-year prescription period, pay bonus retroactively to January 1984-In case at bar, bonus being claimed since 1981-Application dismissed-Two issues: whether Level II adjudicator erred in law in dismissing applicant's grievance and, if so, whether Level II adjudicator's decision protected by final appeal clause found in Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, s. 32(1)-Applicant must exhaust all available remedies before application for judicial review can be entertained by Court-Where final appeal clause, judicial review limited to patently unreasonable errors of law, fact-Decision herein not unreasonable or patently unreasonable-Main question herein, issue of prescription, decided by Trial Judge in Gingras, decision affirmed by Court of Appeal-Assistant Commissioner without discretion to lengthen prescription period in order to grant retroactive payments for longer period if Government of Canada does not make necessary regulations-Even if Assistant Commissioner had discretion, not fettering exercise thereof, as required to follow rule established by Federal Court in Gingras and could not act otherwise-Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 38(1)-Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. R-10, s. 32(1) (as am. by R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 8, s. 16; S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 65).