GUIDO AMSEL Applicant v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, 2020 FC 854

Date: 20200826 Docket: T-508-20 Citation: 2020 FC 854 Ottawa, Ontario, August 26, 2020 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Roy BETWEEN:GUIDO AMSELApplicantandTHE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MANITOBARespondents JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] The Attorney General of Canada seeks an order from this Court to strike the Notice of Application of Mr. Guido Amsel, filed withthe Court in Winnipeg, Manitoba, on April 27, 2020. For the following reasons, the motion to strike must succeed. [2] Mr. Amsel is an inmate held at the Stony Mountain Institution in Manitoba.

He is not represented by counsel. [3] In his Notice of Application in the Federal Court, he challenges a refusal to be given access to information pursuant to the Freedomof Information and Protection of Privacy Act [FIPPA]. This is a provincial statute of the Province of Manitoba. The refusal wascommunicated to Mr. Amsel on March 18, 2020 by an official of the Winnipeg Police Service. The request made was for access torecords stemming from a particular police incident.

According to the reply of March 18, 2020, the applicant was not involved in thatincident and, therefore, his request was denied because it would constitute an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s privacy. [4] The judicial review application alleges errors in the reasoning leading to the conclusion by the Winnipeg Police Service thatinformation sought is third party’s personal information.

The applicant contends that his request is for records related to his case, whichpresumably could alter the decision of the Winnipeg Police Service. [5] The Attorney General of Canada claims that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a judicial review application of a"“decision”" made by a provincial entity under a provincial law, the FIPPA. A judicial review application before the Federal Court canonly be with respect to a decision made by a federal board, commission or tribunal.

As such, it is plain and obvious that the judicialreview application has no possibility of success. [6] The applicant’s response takes the form of his own motion to strike the Crown’s motion to strike. I have taken the applicant’s motionto strike a motion to strike as the respondent’s record in accordance with Rule 369(2) and (3) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106. [7] In essence, Mr. Amsel disagrees that a decision by a provincial entity made pursuant to provincial legislation cannot provide theFederal Court with any jurisdiction.

He claims that the Winnipeg Police Service was wrong in denying access to records relating to anincident in which he was not involved because of a prohibition in FIPPA from disclosing third party information. [8] According to Mr. Amsel, the fact that FIPPA does give jurisdiction to the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench does not prevent theFederal Court from having jurisdiction over the matter as he is not prevented from seeking a remedy from a court of his choosing. [9] The Federal Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this judicial review application.

It can certainly consider judicial reviewapplications, but only where the relief sought is against a federal board, commission or tribunal (subsection 18(1) of the Federal CourtsAct, RSC, 1985, c F-7). "“Federal board, commission or other tribunal”" is defined at

section 2 of the Federal Courts Act which requiresthat it be a "“body, person or persons having, exercising or purporting to exercise jurisdiction or powers conferred by or under

an Act ofParliament or by or under an order made pursuant to a prerogative of the Crown …”". The Winnipeg Police Service acting pursuant toprovincial legislation is not a federal board, commission or other tribunal. [10] In order for a motion to strike to be successful, it must be "“plain and obvious that the action is certain to fail because it containssome such radical defect …”" (Hunt v Carey Canada Inc., (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR 959, at p. 975). Conversely, if there is achance of success, the matter should be allowed to proceed. The same test applies to judicial review applications.

In Canada (NationalRevenue) v JP Morgan Asset Management (Canada) Inc., 2013 FCA 250; [2014] 2 FCR 557 [JP Morgan Asset Management], the Courtwrote: [47] The Court will strike a notice of application for judicial review only where it is “so clearly improper as to be bereft ofany possibility of success”: David Bull Laboratories (Canada) Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc., (FCA), [1995] 1F.C. 588 at page 600 (C.A.). There must be a “show stopper” or a “knockout punch” – an obvious, fatal flaw striking at theroot of this Court’s power to entertain the application: Rahman v.

Public Service Labour Relations Board, 2013 FCA 117 atparagraph 7; Donaldson v. Western Grain Storage By-Products, 2012 FCA 286 at paragraph 6; cf. Hunt v. Carey CanadaInc., (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959.

[11] It may be preferable in most cases for a party to appear on the merits of a judicial review application and argue the issue at theoutset of the hearing (David Bull Laboratories (Canada) Inc. v Pharmacia Inc., (FCA), [1995] 1 F.C. 588 at page597). However, in a case like this one, where it is so clear that this Court lacks jurisdiction, the fatal flaw is obvious and plain. As theCourt of Appeal found in JP Morgan Asset Management, "“(i)f a notice of application seeks only remedies that cannot be granted, itmust be struck”" (para 92). That is evidently the case here.

It follows that the motion for striking the Notice of Application must begranted. The flaw identified in this Notice of Application – the lack of jurisdiction of this Court - is such that it cannot be remediedthrough an amendment. [12] The attorney General seeks its costs on the motion to strike which he situates at $374 (without seeking reimbursement fordisbursements). In my view, given the circumstances of the applicant, although there is a need to impose costs, they should be limited to$100, inclusive of taxes. JUDGMENT in T-508-20 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that: 1.

The motion to strike the Notice of Application for a judicial review is granted, without leave to amend; 2.

Costs in an amount of $100, inclusive of taxes, are awarded. “Yvan Roy” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: t-508-20STYLE OF CAUSE: GUIDO AMSEL v THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and THEATTORNEY GENERAL OF MANITOBAPLACE OF HEARING: MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA (ONTARIO) PURSUANTTO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULESJUDGMENT AND REASONS: ROY J.DATED: AUGUST 26, 2020 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: Guido Amsel For The Applicant (SELF-REPRESENTED)Cynthia Lau For The Respondent THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Attorney General of Canada Winnipeg, Manitoba For The Respondent THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA