CROWN |
Prerogatives |
Chiasson v. Canada
A-216-02
2003 FCA 155, Strayer J.A.
24/3/03
12 pp.
Appeal from Trial Division's dismissal ((2001), 215 F.T.R. 293) of appeal from Prothonotary's dismissal of motion to strike respondent's action for mandamus requiring Honours and Awards Directorate (HAD) to submit to Canadian Bravery Decorations Committee nomination made by respondent-- Respondent nominating father for decoration based on rescue of American sailors in 1943--Nomination form stating only incidents occurring less than two years prior to date of submission considered--Canadian Decorations Advisory Committee (Committee) considered respondent's objections to two-year limitation, decided to continue practice --Rejected nomination as prescribed--Whether such decision, policy amounted to exercise of royal prerogative and therefore beyond judicial review--Question normally considered non-justiciable if no objective legal criteria to apply or no facts to be determined to decide question, functions normally within judicial role--Also non-justiciable if some other branch of government conspicuously more appropriate, in our constitutional system, to decide matter--Arguable Canadian Bravery Decorations Regulations, 1996 constitute set of rules, providing criteria for Court to determine if prescribed procedure followed--Creating legitimate expectation prescribed procedure to screen nominations will be followed --Principles enunciated in Black v. Canada (Prime Minister) (2001), 54 O.R. (3d) 215 (C.A.) applied--That regulations promulgated under royal prerogative not rendering questions of compliance with prescribed procedure plainly beyond judicial review--Letters patent source of Committee's authority--Declare decorations governed by Regulations-- Only criteria in terms of qualifying acts of bravery set out in Regulations, ss. 3, 4 and 5--Time limit within which to make nomination conspicuously absent--Respondent entitled to nominate father for bravery decoration under s. 10--Not plain and obvious Committee's obligation to consider nomination within royal prerogative--Committee not engaged in making final decision as to recipient of bravery award: that is role of Governor General, typical royal prerogative--Relevant exercise of royal prerogative occurred when letters patent issued in 1997--Allowing judicial review of committee's refusal to consider nomination arguably recognition person capable of nominating someone for award has certain procedural rights to consideration of nomination in accordance with duly adopted regulations--Even if Committee's ultimate opinion given to Governor General and Governor General's ultimate choices not judicially reviewable; should not preclude Court from reviewing procedure and criteria followed by Committee to see if complied with Regulations-- Prothonotary, Motions Judge correct in conclusions in not striking out claim--Appeal dismissed-- Canadian Bravery Decorations Regulations, 1996, P.C. 1997-123, C. Gaz. 1997.I.2091, ss. 3, 4, 5, 10.