Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The appellant altered the nature of his judicial review application by abandoning original remedies and seeking a new declaration.

• The court found the request for declaratory relief was not properly raised in the pleadings, depriving the respondent of an opportunity to present evidence.

• Absence of a live controversy and lack of evidence regarding the RCMP grievance process led the court to decline discretionary declaratory relief.

• The court emphasized the existence of alternative means to access RCMP grievance decisions.

• Failure to amend pleadings as directed in a prior decision prevented the new issue from being properly before the court.

• The appeal was dismissed with fixed costs awarded to the respondent.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and procedural history

The appellant sought judicial review of a Federal Court decision that dismissed his application. Initially, the application was based on certain remedies, but the appellant later abandoned all of them and instead pursued a declaration that the open court principle should apply to the grievance process of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). This shift in relief fundamentally changed the nature of the application before the court.

The Federal Court had previously informed the appellant that if he wished to seek a declaration about the open court principle, he needed to formally amend his notice of application. Instead of following this procedure, the appellant attempted to introduce the new relief through his memorandum of fact and law. As a result, the issue was not properly before the court, and the respondent was not given a fair opportunity to respond or present evidence on the RCMP grievance process.

Court’s analysis and findings

The court agreed with the Federal Court’s assessment that the appellant’s attempt to alter the application through written argument was impermissible. The court found that the failure to amend the pleadings meant the new issue was not properly raised, and the respondent was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to address it. Additionally, the court noted that, even if the issue had been properly raised, there was no live controversy or sufficient evidence before the court to justify granting the declaratory relief sought.

The court also observed that there were alternative avenues available for obtaining decisions from the RCMP grievance process, further supporting the decision not to grant the declaration.

Outcome and costs

The appeal was dismissed. The court found no error in the Federal Court’s decision and declined to address additional reasons provided for the original dismissal. The respondent, Attorney General of Canada, was awarded costs in the all-inclusive amount of $500.