Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Termination of the applicant’s employment with the Department of Employment and Social Development Canada following revocation of his reliability status underlies the judicial review application.

• The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board dismissed the applicant’s grievance under section 208 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, and the applicant challenges that decision on judicial review.

• A key evidentiary issue is whether the applicant may use an affidavit to set out his recollection of viva voce evidence from the Board hearing where, as a matter of policy, the Board does not make video or audio recordings or prepare minutes.

• The court treated the affidavit’s background paragraphs as general information that may assist in understanding the issues, without supplying new evidence on the merits or usurping the Board’s role as fact-finder.

• The court accepted that, in the absence of a transcript, it is proper for a party to give their version of the evidence at the hearing in an affidavit, and left any concerns about argument or weight to the panel hearing the judicial review.

• The court dismissed the Attorney General’s request to strike the impugned affidavit paragraphs, granted an extension of 20 days from the date of the order for the Attorney General to serve its affidavits, and made no order as to costs.

Facts and employment context

The case concerns the termination of the employment of Ridwan Abdulaziz with the Department of Employment and Social Development Canada after his reliability status was revoked by the Department’s Chief Security Officer. The applicant filed a grievance under section 208 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, and the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board issued a decision dated July 3, 2025, dismissing that grievance. The applicant challenges the Board’s decision by way of an application for judicial review. In support of that application, he served a 35-paragraph affidavit on September 15, 2025.

Affidavit evidence about the Board hearing

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the respondent, brought a motion dated October 21, 2025, seeking to strike most paragraphs of the applicant’s affidavit and to extend the time to file the respondent’s affidavits. The impugned paragraphs included background information and the applicant’s account of viva voce evidence before the Board. The Attorney General argued that these paragraphs were irrelevant, unreliable, or argumentative and that they offended Rule 81(1) of the Federal Courts Rules, which requires affidavits to be confined to facts within the personal knowledge of the deponent. The applicant opposed the request to strike, submitting that the paragraphs provided relevant background or his recollection of evidence heard by the Board, in circumstances where the Board, as a matter of policy, does not make video or audio recordings or prepare minutes of its hearings.

Court’s approach to the motion

The court noted that advance rulings on admissibility in judicial review proceedings are discretionary and should be made sparingly, given the requirement that such applications be heard and determined without delay and in a summary way. It held that the background paragraphs could remain as general information that might assist in understanding the issues. In the absence of a transcript, the court accepted that it is proper for a party to give their version of the evidence at the hearing in an affidavit, and observed that the Attorney General could respond with its own evidence of what occurred. The court also concluded that any argumentative statements in the affidavit did not warrant an advance ruling, because the panel hearing the judicial review could disregard improper argument.

Outcome of the motion

The court dismissed the Attorney General’s request for an order striking the impugned paragraphs of the applicant’s affidavit. It granted the Attorney General an extension of 20 days from the date of the order to serve its affidavits and file proof of service. As neither party sought costs, the court awarded none.