Federal Appeal

Administrative Law

Prerequisites to judicial review


Proper remedy for denial of pay and benefits to armed forces member was action

Appellant P was armed forces member, who was released from military due to sexual misconduct. P was released in October 2012, but release was not officially approved until May 2013. P claimed that he should have received regular pay as well as benefits, for period between release and approval. Respondent Crown set out position that they would not pay P for this time period, in response to letter from P’s counsel. P brought application for judicial review, before Federal Court. Federal Court found that letter was not decision that was properly subject to judicial review. P appealed this judgment to Federal Court of Appeal. Appeal dismissed. Policies in issue did not provide legal rights. Proper remedy for P was to bring action. Federal Court was not asked to convert judicial review application into action. Appeal was dismissed with costs payable to Crown in amount of $1,000.

Pearson v. Canada (Attorney General) (2017), 2017 CarswellNat 4521, 2017 FCA 191, Johanne Gauthier J.A., D.G. Near J.A., and Mary J.L. Gleason J.A. (F.C.A.); affirmed (2016), 2016 CarswellNat 2531, 2016 CarswellNat 9091, 2016 FC 679, 2016 CF 679, Simon Fothergill J. (F.C.).


cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

A Law Society of Ontario tribunal has ruled that a lawyer charged with offences related to child pornography should not be subject to an interlocutory suspension. Do you agree with this decision?