[2012] 4 F.C.R. D-9
Ethics
Judicial review of decision by Interim Public Sector Integrity Commissioner dismissing allegations of reprisals made by applicant against Courts Administration Service (CAS), CAS employees—Applicant alleging individual respondents taking reprisal actions against him after he reported what he believed was misconduct by certain CAS employees—Requesting from Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (OPIC) investigator list of witnesses, substance of evidence prior to finalization of report—Investigator finalizing report 21 months after filing of reprisal complaint—Whether applicant denied fairness in investigation process—Complaints processes under Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, S.C. 2005, c. 46 (PSDPA), Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6 similar—Because of similarities, human rights case law helpful in determining whether applicant treated fairly—Parties to human rights complaint having right to be informed of substance of evidence—Having to be offered opportunity to respond to evidence, present relevant arguments—Common law duty of procedural fairness also requiring that parties to complaint under PSDPA be afforded similar opportunity—Disclosure of investigator’s report, opportunityto comment, provision of summary of interviews, other documentary evidence sufficient to allow applicant to know, respond to case—None of this occurring in present case—Procedural fairness also requiring that OPIC’s investigations be neutral, thorough—Investigation not thorough despite length of time matter under investigation—Finally, investigator failing to investigate obvious, crucial evidence—Application allowed.
El-Helou v. Canada (Courts Administration Service) (T-862-11, 2012 FC 1111, Mactavish J., judgment dated September 21, 2012, 36 pp.)