Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Federal Court of Appeal

 

Cour d’appel fédérale

Date: 20100528

Docket: A-91-09

Citation: 2010 FCA 141

 

[ENGLISH TRANSLATION]

Present:          PELLETIER J.A.

 

BETWEEN:

LUC BEAULNE

Applicant

and

PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA

Respondent

 

 

 

Written motion decided without appearance of parties.

 

Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 28, 2010.

 

 

 

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:                                                                                 PELLETIER J. A.

 


Federal Court of Appeal

 

Cour d’appel fédérale

 

Date: 20100528

Docket: A-91-09

Citation: 2010 FCA 141

Present:          PELLETIER J.A.

 

BETWEEN:

LUC BEAULNE

Applicant

and

PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA

Respondent

 

 

REASONS FOR ORDER

PELLETIER J.A.

[1]             This is a motion by the respondent, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, to strike certain portions of Mr. Beaulne’s affidavit, which was filed in support of his application for judicial review. This motion was unnecessarily challenged by a motion by Mr. Beaulne to have the respondent’s motion dismissed.

 

[2]             The respondent’s motion seeks the striking out of various paragraphs of Mr. Beaulne’s affidavit and related exhibits. Chantal Homier-Nehmé’s affidavit mentions the various reasons for which the respondent objects to the receipt of the disputed paragraphs and documents. The affidavit submitted by Mr. Beaulne’s representative does not contradict any of Ms. Homier-Nehmé’s statements. It is therefore logical that the facts that she outlines are true.

 

[3]             Mr. Beaulne is seeking a judicial review of a decision by the Public Service Staff Relations Board, before which there was an adversarial context. It is settled case law that the record before the reviewing court is the record that was, or was compiled, before the lower tribunal (see Association of Architects (Ont.) v. Association of Architectural Technologists (Ont.), 2002 FCA 218, [2003] 1 F.C. 331. In general, this case consists of pleadings, exhibits and, if they exist, transcripts. These elements are submitted to the reviewing court through the applicant’s affidavit.

 

[4]             In this case, the applicant’s affidavit contains numerous documents that were not before the Public Service Staff Relations Board either because it refused to admit them or because they were created after the hearing before the Board. None of these documents or paragraphs of Mr. Beaulne’s affidavit referenced therein, listed in the draft order in Tab 15 of the applicant’s record, are admissible for the purposes of the application for judicial review.

 

[5]             There will therefore be an order that the Registry strike the following portions of Mr. Beaulne’s affidavit by deleting them with black pencil:

               -      Exhibits 7, 11, 12(a) and pages 76 and 77 of Exhibit 8;

               -      Exhibits 12(b) 14, 15, 16, 17 and 20;

               -      Paragraphs 5, 6, 10 and 18 of the affidavit.

 

[6]             Given the respondent’s delay in objecting to these irregularities, there shall be no order with respect to costs.

 

 

 

“J.D. Denis Pelletier”

J.A.

 


FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

 

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

 

DOCKET:                                                                              A-91-09

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                              LUC BEAULNE and PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA

 

 

WRITTEN MOTION DECIDED WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES

 

 

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:                                             PELLETIER J.A.

 

DATED:                                                                                 MAY 28, 2010

 

 

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:

 

ROBERT DOUCET

FOR THE APPLICANT

 

JAMES CAMERON

FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

CENTRE HOSPITALIER MÉMORIAL DE WAKEFIELD

WAKEFIELD, QUÉBEC

 

FOR THE APPLICANT

 

RAVEN, CAMERON, BALLANTYNE & YAZBECK LLP

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

 

 

 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.