|
JR - Notice of Application. McQueen v. Douglas
In McQueen v. Douglas (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a JR application, here brought against decisions of an appointed Superior Court judge that dismissed complaints [under CJA 33.1 'Complaints'] of improprieties against a referee and two deputy-judges.
Here the court considers the purpose of a JR 'Notice of Application':[28] Further, there are no facts or particulars pleaded to support any of the grounds raised by the applicant. The purpose of the notice of application is to provide sufficient notice to the responding party of matters in issue, so they can provide a meaningful response. For the court, the notice serves as the framework for the adjudication. The grounds here are nothing but bare and bald allegations. Therefore, on their face, they too are frivolous and should be dismissed. . Atwood v. Canada (Attorney General)
In Atwood v. Canada (Attorney General) (Fed CA, 2025) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a JR, which was earlier dismissed because "the appellant had impermissibly altered the nature of his judicial review application because he abandoned all the remedies sought in the application and instead sought a declaration ... which fundamentally altered the nature of the application."
Here the court illustrates the importance of a Notice of Application being accurate (and thus the need to amend it if the remedy sought is changed):[3] The appellant was told in paragraph 26 of an earlier Federal Court decision in Atwood v. Attorney General of Canada, 2023 FC 959 (per Sadrehashemi J.) that if he wished to seek a declaration regarding the application of the open court principle to the RCMP grievance process, a request to amend his notice of application could be made to the Case Management Judge. The appellant did not do so and instead sought to raise the request for declaratory relief in his memorandum of fact and law. His failure to properly amend his pleadings meant that the issue of the requested declaration was not in issue in the pleadings, with the result that the respondent was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to file evidence about the RCMP grievance process.
[4] We agree with the Federal Court that the request for declaratory relief fundamentally altered the nature of the application for judicial review and that it was not open to the appellant to make this alteration in his memorandum.
|
