Detorakis v. Public Sector Integrity Commissioner

Detorakis v. Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2009-02-09
Neutral citation
2009 FCA 36
File numbers
A-532-08, A-534-08
Decision Content
Date: 20090209
Docket: A-532-08
A-534-08
Citation: 2009 FCA 36
Present: SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
JOHN DETORAKIS
Appellant
and
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR INTEGRITY CANADA (also known as THE PUBLIC SECTOR INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER)
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondents
Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on February 9, 2009.
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: SHARLOW J.A.
Date: 20090209
Docket: A-532-08
A-534-08
Citation: 2009 FCA 36
Present: SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
JOHN DETORAKIS
Appellant
and
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR INTEGRITY CANADA (also known as THE PUBLIC SECTOR INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER)
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER
SHARLOW J.A.
[1] The appellant John Detorakis has filed an application in the Federal Court (T-1078-08) seeking certain administrative law remedies against the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. On October 7, 2008, Justice Phelan made two interlocutory orders in that application. The first order requires the Attorney General of Canada to be named as respondent in place of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. The second order requires the application to be specially managed. Mr. Detorakis has appealed both interlocutory orders, naming as respondents both the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and the Attorney General of Canada.
[2] Mr. Detorakis also moved to stay both interlocutory orders, but those motions were dismissed on November 26, 2008 by Justice Létourneau.
Motions re proper respondent in appeals
[3] Before me are motions by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner to be removed as respondent in both appeals. Mr. Detorakis opposes the motions because he believes that unless the Commissioner is named as a respondent, he will have no effective remedy for his complaint that the Commissioner is in breach of his obligation under Rule 318 to provide certain tribunal records. In my view, Mr. Detorakis’ concern is unfounded. If a breach of Rule 318 is established, the Federal Court has the jurisdiction to make an order that will remedy the breach, even if the Commissioner is not named as a respondent.
[4] The Attorney General of Canada is the only proper respondent in Mr. Detorakis’ application in the Federal Court, and that will remain the case unless Mr. Detorakis’ appeal of the first order of Justice Phelan is successful. Therefore, the Attorney General of Canada is the only proper respondent in these interlocutory appeals. For that reason, the motions of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner will be granted.
Motion re Rule 318
[5] Mr. Detorakis has filed a motion in relation to the first interlocutory appeal for an order under Rule 350 requiring the Commissioner to produce certain documents. This motion will be dismissed. I am not satisfied that any tribunal records are needed to resolve an interlocutory appeal on the question of whether the Attorney General of Canada is the only proper respondent in an application for judicial review.
Costs
[6] The costs of these motions will be costs in the cause.
“K. Sharlow”
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-532-08
A-534-08
STYLE OF CAUSE: John Detorakis v. The Chief Executive Officer of the Public Service Integrity Canada and The Attorney General of Canada
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: SHARLOW J.A.
DATED: February 9, 2009
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
John Detorakis
ON HIS OWN BEHALF
Joe Friday
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
General Counsel
Office of the Public Section
Integrity Canada
FOR THE RESPONDENT