Applicant was unsuccessful candidate in job selection process for position as tax auditor at respondent Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). After applicant successfully challenged process, CRA issued corrective measures. Measures were subsequently found to unreasonable and CRA issued new corrective measures. Applicant brought application for judicial review asking court to set aside decision of CRA purporting to correct errors in selection process and have matter remitted back to CRA to rectify errors. Application was dismissed. Judge found that application for judicial review was moot and judge declined to exercise discretion to hear moot application. Applicant appealed. Appeal dismissed. Even if judge erred in admitting affidavit into evidence that established applicant had been promoted to higher classified position, it did not impeach finding that matter was moot. Judge would have reached same conclusion without affidavit. Judge chose proper test for mootness and made no error in applying it to facts. Judge did not err in declining to exercise discretion to hear moot case. Considering whether there was adversarial context, lack of practical effect of decision on applicant, interests of judicial economy and role of courts in legal system as whole, there was no error in decision that warranted appellate intervention.
Plato v. Canada Revenue Agency (Oct. 13, 2015, F.C.A., Trudel J.A., A.F. Scott J.A., and Boivin J.A., File No. A-10-15) Decision at 248 A.C.W.S. (3d) 100 was affirmed. 258 A.C.W.S. (3d) 540.