Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicant challenged the procedural fairness and neutrality of a CBSA internal investigation into his conduct.

• A motion sought to prevent the dissemination of a draft final investigation report pending judicial review.

• The court evaluated the three-part test for interlocutory injunctions: serious issue, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience.

• Evidence from parliamentary committee testimony was struck for violating parliamentary privilege.

• The applicant was granted relief from the default rule requiring an undertaking for damages.

• No costs were awarded as both parties failed to substantiate their claims for costs during the hearing.

Facts and outcome of the case

Cameron MacDonald, a senior public servant and former executive at the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), brought a motion before the Federal Court to block the dissemination of a draft final Professional Standards Investigation Report implicating him in alleged workplace misconduct. The investigation originated after Botler AI, a third-party contractor, raised concerns in 2022 about workplace issues at CBSA, which later became public and triggered parliamentary hearings. MacDonald claimed the investigation was tainted by institutional bias, procedurally unfair, and retaliatory, particularly after he testified before a parliamentary committee (OGGO).

MacDonald was not informed of the investigation until late 2023, despite CBSA’s claim that it had begun a preliminary inquiry earlier. In early 2024, his security clearance was revoked and he was suspended without pay, actions he successfully grieved. The report in question was shared with him in February 2025, and he immediately initiated judicial review proceedings, arguing that its findings were flawed and its release would cause irreparable reputational harm.

In assessing the injunction request, the court applied the standard three-part test. It found there was a serious issue to be tried, notably around allegations of bias and procedural deficiencies in the CBSA's internal investigative process. The court also concluded that the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the report were released—particularly harm to his professional reputation—and that the balance of convenience favored restraint, as the public interest would not be harmed by a temporary delay.

Additionally, the applicant requested relief from Rule 373(2), which normally requires a party seeking an injunction to undertake to pay damages if the injunction is found unjustified. The court granted this request, citing the applicant’s financial hardship, the public law context, and the minimal risk of financial harm to the government.

The decision also addressed evidentiary disputes. The court ruled that several of MacDonald’s affidavit exhibits containing parliamentary testimony were inadmissible due to parliamentary privilege. Similarly, media articles cited in support of the motion were partially struck for containing inadmissible hearsay.

Ultimately, Justice Henry S. Brown granted the interlocutory injunction, prohibiting the dissemination of the report until the judicial review is decided. The court also allowed MacDonald to proceed without posting an undertaking for damages. Neither party was awarded costs, as both failed to provide proper submissions at the hearing.