Federal Court

Administrative Law

Applicant might be prone to commit act that unlawfully interfered with civil aviation

Applicant obtained security clearance at Edmonton International Airport in 2006. On January 25, 2007, applicant and another airport employee were apprehended smoking marijuana in applicant’s car. Applicant was charged for possession of marijuana, but charge was withdrawn. In 2008, applicant began working for airline as baggage handler. In early 2009, applicant was charged with possession of controlled substance for purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime. Applicant pled guilty to lesser offence of possession of controlled substance and received conditional discharge with 12 months’ probation. Applicant retained his security clearance and continued to work for airline. In 2011, his application to renew his security clearance was denied. Following review by Transportation Security Clearance Advisory Body, applicant’s security clearance was cancelled. Applicant sought judicial review of decision. Application dismissed. Decision to cancel security clearance was reasonable in light of evidence submitted and applicable standard of proof. Although first charge against applicant had been withdrawn and he had received conditional discharge for second, the Advisory Body noted evidence suggested trafficking, that applicant had used drugs while on break from work, and that events were fairly recent. Evidence reasonably supported conclusion that applicant, on balance of probabilities, might be prone or induced to commit, or to assist or abet an individual to commit, act that unlawfully interfered with civil aviation.

Dolinski v. Canada (Attorney General) (Oct. 10, 2013, F.C., E. Heneghan J., File No. T-1317-12) 233 A.C.W.S. (3d) 532

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is the highest number of lawyer candidates in the upcoming Law Society of Ontario Bencher election since 1995, but turn-out is declining. Do you think voting should be mandatory for all lawyers and paralegals in this election?