Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Procedural fairness was violated when the Chief of Defence Staff rendered a decision on May 1, 2024, before the plaintiff's deadline of May 17, 2024, to submit arguments and supporting documents had passed.
• A former Canadian Armed Forces member challenged the rejection of his harassment complaint against an instructor at the School of Aerospace Technology and Engineering through judicial review.
• The defendant conceded that the decision-maker failed to comply with natural justice requirements by issuing the determination prematurely.
• Settlement negotiations occurred after court proceedings were initiated, with the defendant offering to quash the decision and remit the grievance for reconsideration by a new decision-maker.
• Rejection of the written settlement offer and proceeding to a hearing despite the defendant's concession became relevant to the court's assessment of costs.
• Judicial review was granted despite the plaintiff's failure to respond to the settlement proposal, resulting in a modest costs award against the successful party.

Background and context

Adam Alldowell is a former member of the Canadian Armed Forces who filed a grievance seeking redress for the rejection of his harassment complaint concerning an instructor at the School of Aerospace Technology and Engineering. His grievance was addressed through the internal Canadian Armed Forces grievance procedure, whereby the Chief of Defence Staff acts as the final authority on grievances filed by military members under the National Defence Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. N-5). Alldowell pursued judicial review of the Chief of Defence Staff's decision, designated as file number 5080-1-MG001435, which was rendered on May 1, 2024. The Attorney General of Canada was the defendant in this judicial review application brought before the Federal Court.

The procedural timeline and fairness concerns

The critical facts underlying this case revolve around the procedural timeline and whether the plaintiff received adequate opportunity to present his position before a determination was made. Alldowell was afforded a deadline of May 17, 2024, to provide supplementary information and arguments to support his grievance to the final authority. However, rather than submitting additional information by that date, the plaintiff requested extensions of time on May 24, 2024, and again on May 27, 2024. Following his May 27 extension request, a grievance analyst granted the extension until May 31, 2024, thus extending the plaintiff's submission deadline. Despite this extension being in effect, the decision of the Chief of Defence Staff was received by Alldowell on May 29, 2024—dated May 1, 2024—which was two days before his extended deadline and well before his original May 17 deadline had expired. The defendant subsequently acknowledged that the decision was rendered before the plaintiff's deadline for submitting arguments and documents, thereby violating procedural fairness requirements.

The legal issue of procedural fairness

The central legal question presented to the Federal Court was whether the decision had been made in compliance with procedural fairness, specifically whether the procedure "was fair having regard to all the circumstances." Although Alldowell raised multiple questions concerning the reasonableness and procedural fairness of the decision, the principal issue was procedural fairness. The defendant conceded that a breach of procedural fairness had occurred, removing any dispute regarding the core legal standard. This concession was significant because it effectively established that the plaintiff's right to natural justice—the right to be heard before a determination affecting him was made—had been violated.

Settlement negotiations and the plaintiff's response

On July 10, 2025, the Attorney General's counsel offered to settle the matter, proposing that the case should be returned to the original decision-maker for reconsideration due to the procedural fairness breach. The defendant's position was that no hearing was necessary given this concession and that settlement was the fairest, most expeditious, and most economical solution to the dispute. Under the proposed settlement terms, Alldowell would file a notice of discontinuance of his judicial review application, and upon receipt of that notice, the defendant would quash the May 1, 2024 decision. The grievance would then be re-examined at the final authority level by a new decision-maker, and within 30 days of filing the notice of discontinuance, the plaintiff would have the opportunity to submit updated written representations and documents in support of his grievance. No costs were to be paid by either party under this proposal. Alldowell did not respond to this settlement offer and proceeded to have the matter heard in court.

The court's decision and remedy

The court granted Alldowell's application for judicial review and ordered that grievance 5080-1-MG001435 be re-examined at the final authority level by a new decision-maker. The plaintiff was given 30 days to submit updated written representations and documents in support of his claim. Although Alldowell succeeded in the judicial review, the court awarded $500 in costs in favor of the Attorney General of Canada as a symbolic amount, recognizing that the defendant had made a settlement offer that would have achieved the same result without necessitating a court hearing. Post-judgment interest accrues on the costs award from June 30, 2026.