Maria Constantine

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its motion to strike the respondent's wrongful dismissal claim.

The respondent, a former CSIS employee, alleged wrongful dismissal based on the revocation of his security clearance.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the court lacked jurisdiction because the CSIS Act provides a comprehensive administrative procedure for redress, precluding a civil action under the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

Furthermore, the respondent's claims for pre-termination salary and benefits were an abuse of process as they attempted to re-litigate issues already addressed through grievances.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and other grounds after the respondent denied his request to use space for a religiously based training program.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed requests for orders during proceedings from both parties.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with a previous order to provide particulars and ordered him to do so immediately.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for the respondent's bank statements and a list of founding members, finding them irrelevant to the application.

The respondent in a human rights application requested an order directing the applicant to provide particulars and supporting documentation regarding his allegations of discrimination based on race, colour, and creed.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the requested information relevant to the allegations, and ordered the applicant to provide the particulars and documents, allowing the respondent to file an amended Response thereafter.

The Attorney General of Canada moved to dismiss the plaintiff's Statement of Claim under Rule 21.01(3)(a) or (d), arguing lack of jurisdiction or abuse of process.

The plaintiff, a former CSIS employee, opposed, relying on section 236(3) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, which allows employees to dispute termination not related to discipline or misconduct.

The court found that the "may" in CSISA section 41 regarding SIRC complaints was permissive, not mandatory, and that PSLRA section 236(3) preserves a common law right of action for performance-based terminations.

Given the high burden on the moving party under Rule 21, the motion to dismiss was denied.

The appellants appealed the judgment of the application judge, arguing he failed to invalidate actions taken at a national convention in December 2013.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge correctly treated the issue as collateral because it was not specifically addressed in argument.

Furthermore, a prior unappealed order had specifically permitted the convention and elections to proceed.

The appellants' remedy was to appeal the refusal of the injunction or put the issue squarely before the application judge.