Bernath v. Canada

Bernath v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2007-01-31
Neutral citation
2007 FC 104
File numbers
T-1683-02
Notes
Digest
Decision Content
Date: 20070131
Docket: T‑1683‑02
Citation: 2007 FC 104
Ottawa, Ontario, January 31, 2007
Present: Mr. Justice Simon Noël
BETWEEN:
PATRICK BERNATH
Applicant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] This is a motion brought pursuant to rule 51 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98‑106 (Rules), by a former soldier in the Canadian Forces, Mr. Patrick Bernath, who is appealing the order of Prothonotary Tabib dated September 9, 2005 dismissing as an abuse of process under rule 221 of the Rules his claim for relief in the amount of $4,510,000.00 in damages under section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982, (U.K.) 1982, c. 11 (Charter) for breach of his right to security of the person under section 7 of the Charter. In this proceeding the applicant is represented by himself.
[2] Briefly put, the prothonotary ruled, after having reviewed the final decision of the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) on the grievance filed by Mr. Bernath for relief of an injustice he alleged he had suffered, that, contrary to the contentions of the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen, this decision did not constitute res judicata. However, at paragraph 70 of the impugned order (Bernath v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2005 FC 1232), the prothonotary ruled that the applicant’s pleading had failed for the following reason:
. . . the Chief of Staff had the necessary jurisdiction to hear and determine the plaintiff's claim as formulated in his amended statement of claim, that this claim could and should have been raised in the course of the plaintiff's grievance filed under the National Defence Act, and that the plaintiff's action constitutes, therefore, an abuse of process.
[3] On the one hand, Mr. Bernath is asking this Court to review the prothonotary’s order on the ground that she made a number of errors of law when she made her determination in this matter. On the other hand, the respondent argues that the order should be upheld because of abuse of process, but also on grounds of res judicata. In the alternative, the respondent alleges that the appropriate remedy in this case is an application for judicial review of the decision of the CSD pursuant to sections 2, 17 and 18 of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F‑7. She further cites a limitation period submission that was rejected by the prothonotary but is not disputed in the context of this appeal.
[4] In view of the relevant case law, where the prothonotary’s decision strikes out a pleading under rule 221 of the Rules, this is a final decision for procedural purposes and the appeal judge, under rule 51 of the Rules, will hear the matter de novo (see Merck and Co. v. Apotex Inc. (2003), 30 C.P.R. (4th) 40 and Canada v. Aqua‑Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425). Therefore, I must proceed herein with a re‑examination of the case as a whole, carefully examining the impugned order, the memoranda of facts and law submitted by the parties, the documents filed by each of them, and the documentary evidence and oral submissions made in this Court. As a result of the directions issued to the parties during the hearing, asking them to clarify certain unresolved issues, the additional observations filed by way of reply were of great usefulness in my analysis.
I. The facts
[5] Concerning the narrative of this case, I rely entirely on the report and summary of the facts related by the prothonotary in her reasons for order at paragraphs 1 to 18 inclusive:
1. PROTHONOTARY TABIB: In 1985, while he was in excellent physical and psychological health, Patrick Bernath joined the Canadian Forces reserve. He later became a member of the Canadian Armed Forces and advanced to the rank of Master Corporal. Thirteen years later, barely 30 years of age, injured in the shoulder, suffering from a post‑traumatic stress syndrome, MCpl Bernath requested and obtained his release from the Armed Forces. He said he was disappointed and betrayed by a military administration that, according to the allegations in the statement of claim, not only refused to recognize or treat his injuries but denigrated his suffering and humiliated him.
2 MCpl (rt) Bernath is receiving a full disability pension for his injuries and illnesses. A grievance filed in regard to the circumstances that had caused and aggravated his injuries and his post‑traumatic stress syndrome, and that ultimately led to his early release, resulted in certain remedies of an administrative nature, but no additional monetary compensation.
3 According to MCpl (rt) Bernath, the disability with which he must now live and the loss of his military career are the result of Her Majesty the Queen's violation of the rights guaranteed to him by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter). He is therefore suing the Crown for monetary relief pursuant to section 24 of the Charter.
4 The Crown has moved to dismiss the action and strike out the proceeding on the basis that the Chief of Staff's decision on the grievance has the effect of res judicata and bars the plaintiff's action. In the alternative, the Crown argues that the cause of action as a whole is out of time.
THE FACTS:
5 The facts on which the plaintiff's action is based, and which I take as proved for the purposes of this motion, appear as follows in the statement of claim filed on October 30, 2002, and subsequently amended with further particulars.
6 Although in perfect physical and mental condition when he enrolled in the Armed Forces, the plaintiff was declared unfit to participate in missions abroad in August 1996, owing to a shoulder injury. Irrespective of this medical classification, the plaintiff was declared fit to participate as a photographer on a peacekeeping mission in Haiti in February 1997. He was given no preparatory training. Despite the physiotherapy treatments required for his shoulder injury, such treatments were not available in Haiti.
7 In September 1997, the plaintiff was assigned to an operation to retrieve bodies from a boat that had foundered at Monrouie, Haiti. Since the Haitians refused for religious reasons to remove the bodies from the water, the plaintiff was forced to physically perform this job, which aggravated his shoulder injury and set off a post‑traumatic stress syndrome (PTSS).
8 Although diagnosed in the weeks following this incident, the plaintiff's PTSS was not adequately treated on his return to Canada in October 1997: the plaintiff was refused permission to continue to be treated by his attending physician; sick leave was denied or, if granted, was ignored; medical recommendations concerning the appropriate pace of work were cancelled; and worse still, he was forced to work overtime and treated as a "liar" and "manipulator".
9 Infuriated, and in the belief that he was being harassed in order to drive him out of the Armed Forces and deprive him of the medical care to which he was entitled, the plaintiff resolved to request his release on January 23, 1998, seeing this as the only way to [TRANSLATION] "be treated as I should be". Here again, the route was fraught with pitfalls: two physicians certified that he did not qualify, on medical grounds, for release. However, the plaintiff was declared qualified for release two days later, and his release became effective on April 8, 1998.
10 A grievance filed in 1998, which will be discussed in greater detail later, was not finally decided at the last level until 2001, and not without arousing some controversy as well, given the refusal by the Chief of Staff to send it to the Grievance Board established by a statutory amendment that came into force in June 2000.
11 The circumstances which, according to the statement of claim, make the above facts a breach of the plaintiff's section 7 Charter rights, and not mere negligence, results from the system of institutional dependency established by the defendant, through which it controls all aspects of a soldier's life, including access to basic medical care, the culture of mandatory obedience and submission, and the duty imposed on soldiers to obey any lawful order including orders that endanger their life or their health, subject to punishment if disobeyed. Accordingly, the defendant's actions are alleged to have breached the plaintiff's right to security of his person, contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.
12 However, the action is alleged to qualify for dismissal as res judicata or an abuse of process on the basis of the following facts, contained in the defendant's motion record and uncontradicted by the plaintiff:
13 On March 27, 1998, prior to his release, the plaintiff filed a [TRANSLATION] "request for redress", in other words, a grievance, under section 29 of the National Defence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. -5. The grievance relates the following facts:
- The deployment to Haiti notwithstanding his medical classification.
- His involvement in the operation to recover dead bodies.
- The refusal to allow treatment by the physician of his choice, the refusal of recommended sick leave, the denigration, the overtime contrary to medical recommendations.
- The duty to resort to release and its acceptance despite some medical opinions of non‑qualification.
14 As one can see, apart from the allegations of delay or irregularities in the processing of the grievance, the plaintiff's grievance results from and is based on the same facts as those that give rise to the present action.
15 The plaintiff subsequently added to the grievance file some recent medical comments and opinions, including medical assessments establishing a connection between the aggravation of his shoulder injury and his service in Haiti. The plaintiff also formally amended his grievance application. The facts at the basis of the application remain the same, albeit reformulated, and the plaintiff develops the following claims:
1. He should not have been deployed to Haiti.
2. His presence in Haiti aggravated the condition of his shoulder.
3. Without this aggravation, he could have healed and continued his career in the Armed Forces.
4. He was not treated appropriately (medically or administratively) on his return from Haiti, witness his PTSS.
5. The plaintiff should not have had to bear alone the consequences of the Armed Forces' unreasonable errors. (The pensions awarded under the Veterans Act are not sufficient to compensate for this type of error.)
16 The request for redress was also amended twice, ultimately claiming:
1. The Canadian decoration;
2. The award of the same commendation that might be awarded to his regiment for services in Haiti; and
3. [TRANSLATION] "Monetary compensation to be determined by an arbitration board pursuant to Book VII of Quebec's Code of Civil Procedure" (to compensate for the damages caused by the loss of his career within the Armed Forces).
17 A final decision was taken, lastly, at the level of the Chief of Defence Staff, stating the following reasons/conclusions:
[TRANSLATION]
- " . . . I do not consider your doctor's recommendation allowing you to go to Haiti as a photographer to be incorrect."
- " . . . I have no reason to doubt the professionalism and work of the medical experts and I think they did everything they could to provide you with the appropriate healthcare. . . ."
- " . . . the administrative release procedures were performed correctly and no administrative or medical irregularity could be identified."
- " . . . your commanding officer had the authority to grant or deny that sick leave. However, in the circumstances, I think it would have been logical to approve the additional recommended sick leave."
18 As for the remedies, the Chief of Staff granted:
1. the denied sick leave, consequently pushing back the effective date of release, and the administrative and financial measures resulting therefrom;
2. eligibility to receive the Canadian decoration; and
3. award of commendation for services in Haiti;
but concluded as follows in regard to the request for monetary compensation:
[TRANSLATION]
Finally, concerning your final request, that is, monetary compensation to be determined by an arbitration board, I am unable to grant it to you since no statutory or regulatory provision gives me that authority. You are now a recipient of a pension for the health problems you suffered while you were a member of the CF. The benefits you are getting represent a final compensation to which you are entitled and take into account all of the factors relevant to your situation at the time of your release. In fact, according to section 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act and section 111 of the Pensions Act, it is not possible both to receive a pension and to sue the CF after being injured.
In short, I think you have been the victim of some injustice and I approve a partial redress in that I am ordering that the sick leave that you were denied be given back to you, thereby allowing you to receive the CD for your twelve years of good and loyal services. I am further awarding you the commendation of the CDS for your courage and the steps that you took during the recovery of the victims of the wreck of the vessel "La Fierté Gonâvienne" in Haiti. However, I do not support your request for monetary compensation.
II. The new documents
[6] In this proceeding, the applicant submitted some new documentary evidence. Without explanation, he filed 17 documents that were not before the prothonotary when she delivered her order dated September 9, 2005. The respondent opposes the inclusion of this documentary evidence in the applicant’s appeal record. The majority of these 17 documents, need I explain, were originally issued by the respondent, and some are in the public domain: The First Independent Review by the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer P.C., C.C., C.D. of the provisions and operation of Bill C‑25, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as required under section 96 of Statutes of Canada 1998, c.35, Submitted to the Minister of National Defence September 3, 2003 (Lamer Report); National Defence Act Review – Response to the Lamer Report, National Military Law Section, Canadian Bar Association, April 2004; News release, Defence Minister Releases Results of Bill C‑25 Review, November 5, 2003; News release, DND Acting Upon Recommendations to Amend the National Defence Act, April 27, 2006; News release, Amendments to the National Defence Act: Bill C‑25, its review, and Bill C‑7, An Act to Amend the National Defence Act, April 27, 2006; Bill C‑7, An Act to Amend the National Defence Act, April 27, 2006; Overhauling Oversight – Ombudsman White Paper; Formative Evaluation of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board – Final Report, April 29, 2005. The other documents relate to the applicant personnally. They are private or semi‑private in nature: correspondence that has been partly expurgated on the basis of certain sections of the Privacy Act or solicitor-client privilege, a letter from the Minister of National Defence to the applicant dated March 2000 and the correspondence of the office of C. Bachand, M.P., concerning Bill C‑7, June 2006.
[7] The case law is well settled: fresh evidence cannot be admitted by the Court sitting on appeal of a prothonotary’s decision. To render its own decision, the Court must, therefore, rely only on the evidence that was before the prothonotary at the time he or she decided the matter (see Dawe v. Canada (2002) 17 C.C. E.B. (3d), 198, 220 F.T.R. 91 and James River Corp. of Virginia v. Hallmark Cards Inc., [1997] 72 C.P.R. (3d) 157). For good reason, private and semi-private documents cannot be considered for the purposes of this appeal and must be excluded. Nevertheless, the documents that are part of the public domain may be admitted in evidence. Mr. Justice von Fickenstein wrote the following comments at paragraph 10 of his decision in Apotex Inc. v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd., 2003 FC 1229:
It has been established that no new evidence should be admitted by the Court when hearing an appeal from a Prothonotary (James River Corp. of Virginia v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., [1997] F.C.J. No. 152 at paras. 31‑32). However, I do not think that this prevents the Court from taking into consideration documents that are part of the public record. In this case both the pleadings and the affidavits are public documents. Consequently they can be taken into consideration by this Court.
However, it is appropriate to note that these public documents submitted by the applicant add very little to the submissions made before the prothonotary and that in this proceeding they were not decisive to the outcome of the point at issue.
III. The preliminary question
[8] Under subsection 221(2) of the Rules, the applicant alleges that in the context of the respondent’s motion to strike, before the prothonotary, the respondent could not file additional evidence.
[9] Furthermore, given the import of that provision, when the motion to strike is based on an allegation that the proceeding discloses no cause of action, no evidence shall be heard.
[10] A reading of the motion to strike made before the prothonotary and of the respondent’s appeal memorandum of facts and law indicates that the proceeding before the prothonotary pertained both to paragraphs 221(1)(c) and 221(1)(f) of the Rules, to the effect that a pleading, or anything contained therein, is frivolous or vexatious and otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.
[11] It is worth noting that these grounds are not listed in subsection 221(2) of the Rules and that when all is said and done, this provision states only one ground for inadmissibility in evidence. Therefore, the respondent could file some additional evidence to support her submissions, since the Rules do not provide any restriction in that regard as to the evidence that is admissible for the purposes of the challenge.
IV. The Canadian Forces grievance resolution procedure
[12] To identify more clearly the points at issue, a proper understanding of the Canadian Forces grievance resolution procedure is necessary. Below are the portions that are relevant to the case at bar from the National Defence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N‑5 (the Act) and from the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces, volume 1, chapter 7 (QR&O), as well as a summary explanation of how this process functions. To ensure a clearer understanding of these reasons, I have appended the Grievance Manual and the Assisting Member Handbook, two guides issued by the Director General – Canadian Forces Grievance Authority to assist the key players involved in the grievance resolution process.
(a) National Defence Act
(i) Right to grieve
29. (1) An officer or non‑commissioned member who has been aggrieved by any decision, act or omission in the administration of the affairs of the Canadian Forces for which no other process for redress is provided under this Act is entitled to submit a grievance.
29. (1) Tout officier ou militaire du rang qui s’estime lésé par une décision, un acte ou une omission dans les affaires des Forces canadiennes a le droit de déposer un grief dans le cas où aucun autre recours de réparation ne lui est ouvert sous le régime de la présente loi.
(2) There is no right to grieve in respect of
(a) a decision of a court martial or the Court Martial Appeal Court;
(b) a decision of a board, commission, court or tribunal established other than under this Act; or
(c) a matter or case prescribed by the Governor in Council in regulations.
(2) Ne peuvent toutefois faire l’objet d’un grief :
a) les décisions d’une cour martiale ou de la Cour d’appel de la cour martiale;
b) les décisions d’un tribunal, office ou organisme créé en vertu d’une autre loi;
c) les questions ou les cas exclus par règlement du gouverneur en conseil.
(3) A grievance must be submitted in the manner and in accordance with the conditions prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council.
(3) Les griefs sont déposés selon les modalités et conditions fixées par règlement du gouverneur en conseil.
(4) An officer or non‑commissioned member may not be penalized for exercising the right to submit a grievance.
(4) Le dépôt d’un grief ne doit entraîner aucune sanction contre le plaignant.
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (4), any error discovered as a result of an investigation of a grievance may be corrected, even if correction of the error would have an adverse effect on the officer or non‑commissioned member.
(5) Par dérogation au paragraphe (4), toute erreur qui est découverte à la suite d’une enquête sur un grief peut être corrigée, même si la mesure corrective peut avoir un effet défavorable sur le plaignant.
29.11 The Chief of the Defence Staff is the final authority in the grievance process.
29.11 Le chef d’état‑major de la défense est l’autorité de dernière instance en matière de griefs.
29.12 (1) The Chief of the Defence Staff shall refer every grievance that is of a type prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council to the Grievance Board for its findings and recommendations before the Chief of the Defence Staff considers and determines the grievance. The Chief of the Defence Staff may refer any other grievance to the Grievance Board.
29.12 (1) Avant d’étudier un grief d’une catégorie prévue par règlement du gouverneur en conseil, le chef d’état‑major de la défense le soumet au Comité des griefs pour que celui‑ci lui formule ses conclusions et recommandations. Il peut également renvoyer tout autre grief devant le Comité.
(2) When referring a grievance to the Grievance Board, the Chief of the Defence Staff shall provide the Grievance Board with a copy of
(a) the written submissions made to each authority in the grievance process by the officer or non‑commissioned member presenting the grievance;
(b) the decision made by each authority in respect of the grievance; and
(c) any other information under the control of the Canadian Forces that is relevant to the grievance.
(2) Le cas échéant, il lui transmet copie :
a) des argumentations écrites présentées par l’officier ou le militaire du rang à chacune des autorités ayant eu à connaître du grief;
b) des décisions rendues par chacune d’entre elles;
c) des renseignements pertinents placés sous la responsabilité des Forces canadiennes.
29.13 (1) The Chief of the Defence Staff is not bound by any finding or recommendation of the Grievance Board.
29.13 (1) Le chef d’état‑major de la défense n’est pas lié par les conclusions et recommandations du Comité des griefs.
(2) If the Chief of the Defence Staff does not act on a finding or recommendation of the Grievance Board, the Chief of the Defence Staff shall include the reasons for not having done so in the decision respecting the disposition of the grievance.
(2) S’il choisit de s’en écarter, il doit toutefois motiver son choix dans sa décision.
29.14 The Chief of the Defence Staff may delegate to any officer any of the Chief of the Defence Staff’s powers, duties or functions as final authority in the grievance process, except
(a) the duty to act as final authority in respect of a grievance that must be referred to the Grievance Board; and
(b) the power to delegate under this section.
29.14 Le chef d’état‑major de la défense peut déléguer à tout officier le pouvoir de décision définitive que lui confère l’article 29.11, sauf pour les griefs qui doivent être soumis au Comité des griefs; il ne peut toutefois déléguer le pouvoir de délégation que lui confère le présent article.
(ii) Final decision
29.15 A decision of a final authority in the grievance process is final and binding and, except for judicial review under the Federal Courts Act, is not subject to appeal or to review by any court.
29.15 Les décisions du chef d’état‑major de la défense ou de son délégataire sont définitives et exécutoires et, sous réserve du contrôle judiciaire prévu par la Loi sur les Cours fédérales, ne sont pas susceptibles d’appel ou de révision en justice.
(iii) Grievance Board
29.16 (1) There is established a board, called the Canadian Forces Grievance Board, consisting of a Chairperson, at least two Vice‑Chairpersons and any other members appointed by the Governor in Council that are required to allow it to perform its functions.
29.16 (1) Est constitué le Comité des griefs des Forces canadiennes, composé d’un président, d’au moins deux vice‑présidents et des autres membres nécessaires à l’exercice de ses fonctions, tous nommés par le gouverneur en conseil.
29.2 (1) The Grievance Board shall review every grievance referred to it by the Chief of the Defence Staff and provide its findings and recommendations in writing to the Chief of the Defence Staff and the officer or non‑commissioned member who submitted the grievance.
29.2 (1) Le Comité des griefs examine les griefs dont il est saisi et transmet, par écrit, ses conclusions et recommandations au chef d’état‑major de la défense et au plaignant.
(2) The Grievance Board shall deal with all matters before it as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness permit.
(2) Dans la mesure où les circonstances et l’équité le permettent, il agit avec célérité et sans formalisme.
29.21 The Grievance Board has, in relation to the review of a grievance referred to it, the power
(a) to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce any documents and things under their control that it considers necessary to the full investigation and consideration of matters before it;
(b) to administer oaths; and
(c) to receive and accept any evidence and information that it sees fit, whether admissible in a court of law or not.
29.21 Le Comité des griefs dispose, relativement à la question dont il est saisi, des pouvoirs suivants :
a) assigner des témoins, les contraindre à témoigner sous serment, oralement ou par écrit, et à produire les documents et pièces sous leur responsabilité et qu’il estime nécessaires à une enquête et étude complètes;
b) faire prêter serment;
c) recevoir et accepter les éléments de preuve et renseignements qu’il estime indiqués, qu’ils soient ou non recevables devant un tribunal.
29.23 (1) No witness shall be excused from answering any question relating to a grievance before the Grievance Board when required to do so by the Grievance Board on the ground that the answer to the question may tend to criminate the witness or subject the witness to any proceeding or penalty.
29.23 (1) Tout témoin est tenu de répondre aux questions sur le grief lorsque le Comité des griefs l’exige et ne peut se soustraire à cette obligation au motif que sa réponse peut l’incriminer ou l’exposer à des poursuites ou à une peine.
(2) No answer given or statement made by a witness in response to a question described in subsection (1) may be used or receivable against the witness in any disciplinary, criminal, administrative or civil proceeding, other than a hearing or proceeding in respect of an allegation that the witness gave the answer or made the statement knowing it to be false.
(2) Les déclarations ainsi faites en réponse aux questions ne peuvent être utilisées ni ne sont recevables contre le témoin devant une juridiction disciplinaire, criminelle, administrative ou civile, sauf si la poursuite ou la procédure porte sur le fait qu’il les savait fausses.
29.24 Travel and living expenses incurred in appearing before the Grievance Board shall, in the discretion of the Grievance Board, be paid, in accordance with applicable Treasury Board directives, to the officer or non‑commissioned member whose grievance is being heard, and to that person’s assisting officer or counsel, if the Grievance Board holds a hearing at a place in Canada that is not their ordinary place of residence.
29.24 Lorsque le Comité des griefs siège, au Canada, ailleurs qu’au lieu de leur résidence habituelle, le plaignant et l’officier qui l’assiste ou son avocat, selon le cas, sont indemnisés, selon l’appréciation du Comité et en conformité avec les normes établies par le Conseil du Trésor, des frais de déplacement et de séjour exposés pour leur comparution devant le Comité.
29.26 (1) The Chairperson may make rules respecting
(a) the manner of dealing with grievances referred to the Grievance Board, including the conduct of investigations and hearings by the Grievance Board;
29.26 (1) Le président peut établir des règles pour régir :
a) la procédure d’examen des griefs par le Comité des griefs, notamment quant à la tenue d’enquêtes et d’audiences;
(b) the apportionment of the work of the Grievance Board among its members and the assignment of members to review grievances; and
b) la répartition des affaires et du travail entre les membres du Comité;
(c) the performance of the duties and functions of the Grievance Board.
c) la conduite des travaux du Comité et de son administration.
(2) A hearing of the Grievance Board is to be held in private, unless the Chairperson, having regard to the interests of the persons participating in the hearing and the interest of the public, directs that the hearing or any part of it be held in public.
(2) Sauf instruction contraire du président, eu égard à l’intérêt des personnes prenant part à l’audience et à celui du public, les audiences du Comité se tiennent, en tout ou en partie, à huis clos.
29.28 (1) The Chairperson shall, within three months after the end of each year, submit to the Minister a report of the activities of the Grievance Board during that year and its recommendations, if any.
29.28 (1) Le président du Comité des griefs présente au ministre, au plus tard le 31 mars de chaque année, le rapport d’activité du Comité pour l’année civile précédente, assorti éventuellement de ses recommandations.
(2) The Minister shall have a copy of the report laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the Minister receives it.
(2) Le ministre le fait déposer devant chaque chambre du Parlement dans les quinze premiers jours de séance de celle‑ci suivant sa réception.
(b) Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces (volume 1 – Administration, chapter 7)
(i) Time Limit
7.02 – TIME LIMIT
(1) A grievance must be submitted within six months after the day that the member knew or ought reasonably to have known of the decision, act or omission in respect of which the grievance is submitted.
7.02 – DÉLAI
(1) Tour grief doit être déposé dans les six mois qui suivent la date à laquelle le militaire a pris ou devrait avoir raisonnablement pris connaissance de la décision, de l’acte ou de l’omission qui fait l’objet du grief.
(2) A member who submits a grievance after the expiration of the period referred to in paragraph (1) must submit reasons for the delay.
(2) Le militaire qui dépose son grief après l’expiration de ce délai doit soumettre par écrit les raisons du retard.
(3) An initial authority may consider a grievance that is submitted after the expiration of the period if the initial authority is satisfied that to do so would be in the interests of justice. An initial authority who is not satisfied shall provide reasons in writing to the member.
(3) L’autorité initiale peur connaître du grief déposé en retard si elle estime qu’il est dans l’intérêt de la justice de le faire. Elle doit toutefois motiver par écrit son refus au militaire.
(ii) Submission to Commanding Officer (initial authority)
7.04 – SUBMISSION TO COMMANDING OFFICER
(1) A grievance must be in writing, signed by the grievor and submitted to the grievor’s commanding officer.
7.04 – DÉPÔT D’UN GRIEF AU COMMANDANT
(1) Le grief est fait par écrit et signé par le plaignant, puis déposé devant le commandant de celui‑ci.
(2) A grievance must include:
(2) Le grief renferme les éléments suivants :
(a) a brief description of the decision, act or omission that is the subject of the grievance, including any facts known to the grievor;
a) une description sommaire de la décision, de l’acte ou de l’omission qui fait l’objet du grief, y compris tous les faits qui sont connus du plaignant;
(b) a request for determination and the redress sought;
b) une demande en vue d’obtenir une décision et le redressement désiré;
(c) if a person can substantiate the grievance, a statement in writing from that person; and
c) si une personne peut établir le bien‑fondé du grief, une déclaration écrite de celle‑ci;
(d) a copy of any relevant document in the possession of the grievor.
d) une copie de tout document pertinent qui est en la possession du plaignant.
7.05 – DUTIES OF COMMANDING OFFICER
(1) A commanding officer to whom a grievance is submitted shall examine the grievance and determine whether the commanding officer is able to act as the initial authority in respect of the grievance.
7.05 – OBLIGATIONS DU COMMANDANT
(1) Le commandant qui est saisi d’un grief l’examine et décide s’il peut, à l’égard de celui‑ci, agir à titre d’autorité initiale.
(2) If the commanding officer is not able to act as the initial authority, the commanding officer shall:
(2) S’il ne peut agir à titre d’autorité initiale, le commandant doit :
(a) forward the grievance within 10 days of receipt to the initial authority;
a) transmettre le grief à l’autorité initiale dans les 10 jours suivant la réception de celui‑ci;
(b) forward any additional information to the initial authority that the commanding officer considers relevant to the grievance; and
b) transmettre à l’autorité initiale tout renseignement supplémentaire que le commandant estime pertinent au grief;
(c) inform the grievor of the action taken and, where applicable, provide the grievor with a copy of any additional information forwarded to the initial authority.
c) aviser le plaignant des mesures prises et, le cas échéant, lui fournir une copie de tout renseignement supplémentaire transmis à l’autorité initiale.
7.06 – WHO MAY ACT AS INITIAL GRIEVANCE AUTHORITY
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the initial authority who may consider and determine a grievance is:
7.06 – QUI PEUT AGIR À TITRE D’AUTORITÉ INITIALE EN MATIÈRE DE GRIEFS
(1) Sous réserve de l’alinéa (2), à titre d’autorité initiale peut examiner et décider du bien‑fondé d’un grief :
(a) the commanding officer of the grievor if the commanding officer can grant the redress sought; or
a) le commandant du plaignant, s’il peut accorder le redressement demandé;
(b) the commander, or officer holding the appointment of Director General or above at National Defence Headquarters, who is responsible to deal with the matter that is the subject of the grievance.
b) le commandant ou l’officier titulaire d’un poste de directeur général ou d’un poste supérieur à celui‑ci au quartier général de la Défense nationale qui est chargé de décider des questions faisant l’objet du grief.
7.07 – DUTIES OF INITIAL GRIEVANCE AUTHORITY
(1) Upon receipt of a grievance the initial authority shall, within 60 days:
7.07 – OBLIGATIONS DE L’AUTORITÉ INITIALE EN MATIÈRE DE GRIEFS
(1) Dans les 60 jours suivant la réception d’un grief, l’autorité initiale doit :
(a) consider and determine the grievance;
a) étudier et décider du bien‑fondé du grief;
(b) advise the grievor in writing, through the commanding officer if the initial authority is not the commanding officer, of:
b) informer le plaignant par écrit, par l’intermédiaire de son commandant dans le cas où ce dernier n’est pas l’autorité initiale :
(i) the determination and the reasons for it; and
(i) de la décision et des motifs à l’appui;
(ii) where applicable, the grievor’s entitlement to submit the grievance to the Chief of the Defence Staff;
(ii) le cas échéant, du droit du plaignant de déposer son grief devant le chef d’état‑major de la défense;
(c) return any documents or things submitted by the grievor if requested to do so; and
c) renvoyer tout document ou pièce déposé par le plaignant, si une demande est faite à cet égard;
(d) maintain a record of the grievance, including the determination made and any action taken.
d) conserver le dossier du grief, notamment la décision et les mesures prises.
(2) Where an initial authority other than the Chief of the Defence Staff does not determine a grievance within the period required under paragraph (1), the grievor may request that the initial authority submit the grievance to the Chief of the Defence Staff for consideration and determination.
(2) Si une autorité initiale – autre que le chef d’état‑major de la défense – ne prend pas de décision à l’égard du grief dans le délai prévu à l’alinéa (1), le plaignant peut demander à l’autorité initiale de renvoyer le grief devant le chef d’état‑major de la défense pour qu’il l’étudie et en décide.
(3) Where the Chief of the Defence Staff is the initial authority, the time limit under paragraph (1) does not apply.
(3) Le délai prévu à l’alinéa (1) ne s’applique pas dans le cas où le chef d’état‑major de la défense est l’autorité initiale.
(iii) Submission to CDS (final authority)
7.10 – SUBMISSION TO CHIEF OF THE DEFENCE STAFF
(1) Where a member has submitted a grievance under article 7.01 (Right to Grieve) and the decision of the initial authority does not afford the redress that, in the opinion of the member, is warranted, the member may submit the grievance to the Chief of the Defence Staff for consideration and determination.
7.10 – DÉPÔT DU GRIEF DEVANT LE CHEF D’ÉTAT‑MAJOR DE LA DÉFENSE
(1) Si un militaire qui a déposé un grief aux termes de l’article 7.01 (Droit de déposer des griefs) est d’avis que la décision de l’autorité initiale ne lui accorde pas le redressement qui semble justifié, il peut porter son grief devant le chef d’état‑major de la défense pour qu’il l’étudie et en décide.
(2) The grievance must be in writing, signed by the grievor and submitted to the Chief of the Defence Staff within 90 days of receipt by the grievor of the determination of the initial authority.
(2) Le grief est fait par écrit et signé par le plaignant, puis déposé devant le chef d’état‑major de la défense dans les 90 jours qui suivent la réception de la décision de l’autorité initiale.
(3) A member who submits a grievance after the expiration of the period referred to in paragraph (2) must submit reasons for the delay.
(3) Le militaire qui dépose son grief après l’expiration de ce délai doit soumettre par écrit les raisons du retard.
(4) The Chief of the Defence Staff or an officer to whom final authority has been delegated may consider a grievance that is submitted after the expiration of the period referred to in paragraph (2) if satisfied that it would be in the interests of justice to do so. If not satisfied, the Chief of the Defence Staff, or the officer to whom final authority has been delegated, shall provide reasons in writing to the grievor.
(4) Le chef d’état‑major de la défense ou l’officier ayant le pouvoir de décision définitive peut connaître d’un grief déposé en retard s’il estime qu’il est dans l’intérêt de la justice de le faire. Il doit toutefois motiver par écrit son refus au militaire.
7.11 – DUTIES WHERE GRIEVANCE NOT REFERRED TO GRIEVANCE BOARD
Where the grievance is not of a type that must be referred to the Grievance Board pursuant to article 7.12 (Referral to Grievance Board), the Chief of the Defence Staff or the officer to whom final authority has been delegated shall:
7.11 – OBLIGATIONS – GRIEF NON RENVOYÉ DEVANT LE COMITÉ DES GRIEFS
Si le grief n’appartient pas à une catégorie qui exige, en application de l’article 7.12 (Renvoi devant le Comité des griefs), un renvoi devant le Comité des griefs, le chef d’état‑major de la défense ou l’officier ayant le pouvoir de décision définitive doit :
(a) consider and determine the grievance;
a) étudier et décider du bien‑fondé du grief;
(b)