Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdiction of the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) to investigate workplace complaints under the CSIS Act.

• Whether the grievance procedure under the CSIS Act or the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act applied to the appellant’s allegations.

• Reasonableness of SIRC’s conclusion that the appellant’s assault allegations could have been addressed through the grievance procedure.

• Consideration of previous complaints and the application of issue estoppel to bar re-litigation of resolved matters.

• Standard of review applied by the Federal Court in assessing SIRC’s decision.

• Award of costs to the respondent following dismissal of the appeal.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and parties

Danny Palmer, a former employee of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), appealed a decision of the Federal Court that dismissed his application for judicial review of a decision by the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC). Palmer’s complaint, filed with SIRC on February 27, 2018, included allegations of assault, retribution, and harassment. SIRC dismissed the complaint based on subsection 41(2) of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act (CSIS Act), which prohibits SIRC from investigating complaints that can be addressed by a grievance procedure established under the CSIS Act or the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act. Palmer argued that CSIS’s internal grievance procedure excluded harassment complaints, which were handled separately, and that SIRC erred in concluding his assault allegations could have been addressed through the grievance process.

Labour grievance procedures and legal arguments

The court noted that most of Palmer’s allegations had been raised and addressed in several previous complaints. Regarding new allegations of assault and associated retribution and harassment, SIRC concluded that Palmer could have raised them in the grievance procedure, even though he had not done so. Palmer argued that harassment complaints were excluded from the grievance process, but the court observed that in 2004, Palmer had made harassment allegations in a supplemental grievance filed with the Public Sector Staff Relations Board (PSSRB), which was received and later resolved by settlement, including a broad release from all employment-related claims.

Court’s analysis

The court’s analysis focused on whether the SIRC’s decision was reasonable. The court found that SIRC’s decision described the long history of Palmer’s complaints and explained its conclusion that subsection 41(2) applied. The court also found that Palmer acknowledged he could have raised the assault allegations in the same grievance as his harassment allegations. The court rejected Palmer’s argument that the doctrine of issue estoppel should not apply, finding that all of Palmer’s previous complaints were addressed and finally disposed of by a decision of SIRC, from which either no judicial review was sought or judicial review was denied.

Outcome and costs

The court dismissed Palmer’s appeal and ordered that the appeal be dismissed with costs. The amount of costs was not specified in the decision. Danny Palmer was self-represented. The Attorney General of Canada was represented by Émilie Tremblay, with Shalene Curtis-Micallef, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, as solicitor of record.