Administrative Law Blog
Knowledge Centre

Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada’s decision to refuse investigation into Canadian embassy involvement in foreign mining operations and criminal activity reasonable

March 15, 2022

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Public Sector Integrity Commissioner – Investigations – Judicial review – Appeals – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness

Gordillo v. Canada (Attorney General), [2022] F.C.J. No. 137, 2022 FCA 23, Federal Court of Appeal, February 9, 2022, W.W. Webb, J.B. Laskin and M. Rivoalen JJ.A.

The appellants were supporters of a community leader who was murdered in Mexico in 2009.

The appellants submitted a request to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada to investigate the murder. The basis for the request was the relationship between Canadian Embassy officials in Mexico and a Canadian mine operator in the country. The community leader was a prominent advocate against those mining operations. The RCMP had investigated the Canadian mine operator for contravention of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, S.C. 1998, c. 34. The Commissioner declined to commence an investigation under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, S.C. 2005, c. 46.

On appeal from a judicial review application upholding the Commissioner’s decision, the Federal Court of Appeal held there was no basis to interfere with the decision to not investigate. The Court found the Commissioner’s decision was reasonable. The Commissioner understood the basis put forward for the investigation and applied the appropriate standard for whether to commence an investigation. The Commissioner determined that he must have reason to believe that wrongdoing under the applicable legislation has been committed. The Commissioner did not require, as the appellants argued, that they prove wrongdoing on the merits before he would commence an investigation. The Commissioner properly based his decision on the information and documents provided in support of the request for an investigation.

The appeal was dismissed.

This case was digested by Joel A. Morris, and first published in the LexisNexis® Harper Grey Administrative Law Netletter and the Harper Grey Administrative Law Newsletter.  If you would like to discuss this case further, please contact Joel A. Morris at [email protected].

To stay current with the new case law and emerging legal issues in this area, subscribe here.

Tags

Expertise

Important Notice: The information contained in this Article is intended for general information purposes only and does not create a lawyer-client relationship. It is not intended as legal advice from Harper Grey LLP or the individual author(s), nor intended as a substitute for legal advice on any specific subject matter. Detailed legal counsel should be sought prior to undertaking any legal matter. The information contained in this Article is current to the last update and may change. Last Update: March 15, 2022.

Related

Imposition of Punitive Damages Reminder to Employers of Duty of Good Faith
Imposition of Punitive Damages Reminder to Employers of Duty of Good Faith Imposition of Punitive Damages Reminder to Employers of Duty of Good Faith
Harper Grey Ranks Amongst Top Firms in Lexpert’s 2025 Bulls-Eye Chart
Harper Grey Ranks Amongst Top Firms in Lexpert’s 2025 Bulls-Eye Chart
Adam Way and Caryna Miller present at GeoEnviroPro Talk  
Adam Way and Caryna Miller present at GeoEnviroPro Talk   Adam Way and Caryna Miller present at GeoEnviroPro Talk   Adam Way and Caryna Miller present at GeoEnviroPro Talk  
Harper Grey included on Lexpert’s 2025 List of 12 Largest Firms in Vancouver
Harper Grey included on Lexpert’s 2025 List of 12 Largest Firms in Vancouver
Airbnb successful on appeal contesting OIPC Decision to disclose hosts personal addresses
Airbnb successful on appeal contesting OIPC Decision to disclose hosts personal addresses Airbnb successful on appeal contesting OIPC Decision to disclose hosts personal addresses
Imperfect Compliance? No Problem!
Imperfect Compliance? No Problem! Imperfect Compliance? No Problem! Imperfect Compliance? No Problem!
Court finds that structural damage at property was caused by settlement over time, culminating in sudden event, rather than sinkhole or subsidence, such that exclusion in Policy applied to oust coverage
Court finds that structural damage at property was caused by settlement over time, culminating in sudden event, rather than sinkhole or subsidence, such that exclusion in Policy applied to oust coverage Court finds that structural damage at property was caused by settlement over time, culminating in sudden event, rather than sinkhole or subsidence, such that exclusion in Policy applied to oust coverage Court finds that structural damage at property was caused by settlement over time, culminating in sudden event, rather than sinkhole or subsidence, such that exclusion in Policy applied to oust coverage
Insured denied defence in respect to negligence claim arising out of sale of property
Insured denied defence in respect to negligence claim arising out of sale of property Insured denied defence in respect to negligence claim arising out of sale of property Insured denied defence in respect to negligence claim arising out of sale of property
Insurers for parties on whom minor was equally financially dependent had priority for payment of SABS to minor injured in MVA
Insurers for parties on whom minor was equally financially dependent had priority for payment of SABS to minor injured in MVA Insurers for parties on whom minor was equally financially dependent had priority for payment of SABS to minor injured in MVA Insurers for parties on whom minor was equally financially dependent had priority for payment of SABS to minor injured in MVA
Security in Numbers: Who’s Liable for Coverage for One Incident with Two Policies?
Security in Numbers: Who’s Liable for Coverage for One Incident with Two Policies? Security in Numbers: Who’s Liable for Coverage for One Incident with Two Policies? Security in Numbers: Who’s Liable for Coverage for One Incident with Two Policies?
Adam Way joins Harper Grey Partnership
Adam Way joins Harper Grey Partnership Adam Way joins Harper Grey Partnership
Jennifer Woznesensky elected as newest member of Harper Grey’s Practice Management Committee
Jennifer Woznesensky elected as newest member of Harper Grey’s Practice Management Committee Jennifer Woznesensky elected as newest member of Harper Grey’s Practice Management Committee
Steven Abramson elected as Harper Grey’s Managing Partner
Steven Abramson elected as Harper Grey’s Managing Partner Steven Abramson elected as Harper Grey’s Managing Partner
What you do know can hurt you
What you do know can hurt you What you do know can hurt you What you do know can hurt you
Reporting late provides no relief
Reporting late provides no relief Reporting late provides no relief Reporting late provides no relief
arrow icon

Subscribe