Federal Court


Air Law

AIRPORTS
Not necessary that criminal conviction be made in respect of underlying charges

This was application for judicial review of director’s decision. Applicant was employed at airport and was granted airport security clearance. After security clearance was renewed, applicant was advised it would be reviewed because adverse information had been made available that raised concerns about his suitability to retain clearance. Police had found applicant in passenger seat of vehicle with $2,500 cash and 471 grams of marijuana. Applicant was charged with possession of controlled substance for purpose of trafficking. Charge was withdrawn. Director cancelled applicant’s transportation security clearance, which prevented his continued employment at airport. Application dismissed. There was no breach of procedural fairness. Applicant was advised of information that would be considered and was given opportunity to make representations, which he did. It was not necessary that criminal conviction be made in respect of underlying criminal charges in order for allegations to be relevant to decision to cancel security clearance. Applicant did not challenge underlying facts for charges made against him even though he was given opportunity to do so. Decision to cancel security clearance was reasonable.

Peles v. Canada (Attorney General) (Mar. 21, 2013, F.C., Michael D. Manson J., File No. T-1030-12) 228 A.C.W.S. (3d) 314.

cover image

DIGITAL EDITION

Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll


An Ontario judge is once again calling on the provincial government to fix long waits at assessment offices. Do you think the province needs to step up its efforts to address these delays?
RESULTS ❯