Date: 19991203
Docket: T-2351-98
Ottawa, Ontario, this 3rd day of December, 1999
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PELLETIER
BETWEEN:
RICHARD DENNIS O"CONNOR
Plaintiff
- and -
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE,
CANADIAN FORCES BASE BORDEN
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER and ORDER
[1] This Motion in five parts came to me for disposition in June of this year but inadvertently was overlooked for several months. The matter having come to my attention, I will now dispose of the motion. .
[2] The motion is in five parts, each of which seeks relief of a different sort. There is no affidavit in support of the motion though a number of documents are attached to the Motion. The nature of the relief sought is varied and would not, at first glance, appear to be of a kind which can be granted within a single action. Some of the relief relates to improper garnishment of Sgt. O"Connor"s wages, which is a claim maintainable in an action. Some of the relief relates to setting aside or correcting certain evaluations, or requests the production of certain documents
relating to Sgt O"Connor"s personnel record. The Notice of Motion reflects the variety of relief sought in the Statement of Claim which was drafted by Sgt O"Connor himself. Sgt O"Connor apparently had a factum or Memorandum of Argument as a precedent which he fashioned into a Statement of Claim. The document mixes pleadings and evidence, legal and ethical obligations, claims for damages and claims for relief in the nature of judicial review. It is not a simple document to deal with.
[3] Taking the claims in the Notice of Motion each in their turn, they are as follows:
[4] Part One: "That the Performance Evaluation Report dated (reporting period 01/04/96 to 31/03/97) be included in the Order sought in Statement of Claim ..." At the conclusion of the paragraph, the following also appears: "Also that the results of the Review Board submit their findings to this Court for approval prior to implementation".
[5] One could guess that the first sentence is a request for an amendment to the Statement of Claim so as to request relief with respect to a further personnel evaluation but this is only a guess. Given that it is not obvious what is being sought and how it is relevant to the action, I am not prepared to grant it
[6] The second sentence seeks to have this court undertake to review the findings of an internal tribunal in advance of that tribunal rendering its decision. There is no basis for such an extraordinary order.
[7] Part Two: "That Department of National Defence, Canadian Forces Borden be ordered to conduct training to its supervisors to prevent any future discriminations against it"s soldiers or employees."
[8] Desirable as the objective sought might be, it is not a matter for this court. The management of the Canadian forces is a matter reserved to its commanders. There is no reason shown for this Court to do anything more than to compensate Sgt O"Connor if he has been wronged by an. unlawful act.
[9] Part Three: "That an order for disclosure under Rule 225 of the following documents be given: ...".
[10] Rule 225 deals with disclosure of documents by corporations in an affidavit as to documents. There is no evidence before me that disclosure of these documents is required because of their relevance or that disclosure has been refused. No basis has been established for the granting of the order sought.
[11] Part Four: "That the Department of National Defence, Canadian Forces Base Borden be ordered to post me to my present position in G3 MASM Building O-125 until these matters are resolved or until posting season year 2000."
[12] Once again, this is a request that the Court intervene in the internal management of the Canadian forces. It is in the nature of an interlocutory mandatory injunction. There is no material before me which would justify such an intervention.
[13] Part Five: "That an Order for Disclosure under Rule 225. That the Department of National Defence, Canadian Forces Base Borden, Military Police In particular the National Investigation Service be ordered to surrender a copy of their completed investigation in Major Duncan"s activity form the complaint filed 16 December 1998 with Mcpl Belanger Military Police Section.
[14] There is no basis shown for the making of such an order. It has not been shown how this would be relevant to any issue in the action.
ORDER
The Notice of Motion in all its five parts is dismissed.
Judge