Federal Court Rejects Motion Challenging Procedural Fairness

Date: 20260709 Docket: T-3847-25 Citation: 2026 FC 926 Toronto, Ontario, July 9, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice Whyte Nowak BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent

REASONS AND

ORDER I. Overview [ 1 ] [NAME] [Applicant] has brought this motion pursuant to Rule 51 of the Federal Courts Rules , SOR/98-106 [ Federal Courts Rules ]. The Applicant seeks to overturn the Order and Reasons of Associate Judge Shannon [Associate Judge] dated April 9, 2026 [Decision], which denied the Applicant’s Rule 317 request for documents related to his underlying application for judicial review [Application]. [ 2 ] For the reasons that follow, I am dismissing this motion, as the Applicant has not shown any reviewable error in the Decision and I am unpersuaded that the manner in which the Rule 317 motion proceeded was procedurally unfair.

II. Facts A. Background to the Application [ 3 ] By decision dated September 17, 2025, the Final Authority of the Canadian Forces Grievance Authority [Final Authority] dismissed a grievance filed by the Applicant. On October 3, 2025, the Applicant filed an application for judicial review of that decision. [ 4 ] The Final Authority transmitted its certified tribunal record [CTR], accompanied by a certification, signed by the Senior Policy Advisor at the Final Authority, certifying that the documents included in the CTR were true copies of all the materials that were in the possession of the Final Authority when it made its decision. [ 5 ] The Applicant believes that the CTR is inadequate and fails to disclose the documents listed at paragraphs 6(b) through (y) in his notice of application [Notice of Application]. B. The Associate Judge’s Directions [ 6 ] In connection with the Applicant’s Rule 317 motion, the Associate Judge issued a Direction dated December 17, 2025 [[NAME]] pursuant to Rule 318(3) of the Federal Courts Rules , which set a timeline for the receipt of materials and restricted the parties’ written submissions on the Applicant’s Rule 317 request and the Respondent’s Rule 318(2) objection. The [NAME] states that, “[a]ny document filed that does not comply with this Direction shall be refused for filing.” [ 7 ] When both parties failed to comply with the [NAME], the Associate Judge issued a further Direction dated January 23, 2026, directing the Registry to reject the parties’ non-compliant materials. [ 8 ] The Applicant then submitted the following materials for consideration on the motion: (a) a five page set of written submissions replying to the Respondent’s objection; (b) a 26-page affidavit, sworn by [NAME] on February 24, 2026 [[NAME]], which includes 166 pages of exhibits; and (c) a document entitled “Notice of Motion for Leave to the Court in Writing” [Notice of Motion], which sought an order requiring the Respondent to produce two additional documents. [ 9 ] By Direction dated March 2, 2026 [[NAME]], the Associate Judge accepted the Applicant’s written submissions but rejected the [NAME] as well as the Notice of Motion. The Associate Judge cited Rules 72(2)(a) and 385 of the Federal Courts Rules . C. The Decision [ 10 ] In his Decision, the Associate Judge decided two issues raised on the motion: the first related to the completeness of certain documents contained in the CTR given their redaction, and a second issue related to the Applicant’s contention that documents were missing from the CTR. [ 11 ] In respect of the redacted documents, the Associate Judge granted the motion in part by directing the Final Authority to reissue the CTR and include either the select documents in an unredacted form or a certification that affirms that the redacted documents appear exactly as they did when they were in the possession of the Final Authority at the time it rendered its decision. [ 12 ] The Associate Judge also considered whether the Applicant is entitled to receive additional documents that were not before the Final Authority. He determined that the Applicant’s Notice of Application does not allege a breach of his procedural fairness rights by the Final Authority or a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Final Authority and therefore an expanded scope of production was not justified. [ 13 ] Following the issuance of the Decision, the Respondent served an amended CTR on April 29, 2026, which confirmed that the documents in the CTR are in their original redacted form. D. The relief sought on this appeal [ 14 ] The Applicant’s notice of motion dated May 5, 2026, requests the following relief: (i) the Decision be set aside; (ii) the [NAME] and Notice of Motion be concurrently considered with this appeal; (iii) the Respondent be ordered to produce the documents listed in his Notice of Application at paragraphs 6(b) through (y) in unredacted form as well as two sets of documents sought in the Notice of Motion; and (iv) alternative or non-binding mediation be made available.

III. Issues and Standard of Review [ 15 ] The Applicant is appealing the Decision on the basis that it was procedurally unfair and contains errors of law. [ 16 ] The standard of review to be applied on an appeal under Rule 51 of the Federal Courts Rules is that described by the Supreme Court of Canada in [NAME] v [NAME] , 2002 SCC 33 at paragraphs 26-36 and by the Federal Court of Appeal in Hospira Healthcare Corporation v [NAME] of Rheumatology , 2016 FCA 215 at paragraphs 63-65, 79, 83. In accordance with this standard of review, questions of fact and questions of mixed fact and law (absent an extricable question of law) are reviewable on the deferential standard of correctness ( Canada (Attorney General) v [COMPANY] , 2021 FCA 244 at para 33).

IV. Preliminary Issue [ 17 ] As a preliminary issue, the respondent objects to the Applicant’s inclusion in the record of “a multitude of evidence” that was not before the Associate Judge and argues that there is no basis for departing from the general rule that the Court should refuse to admit new evidence on an appeal (citing [COMPANY] v [COMPANY] , 2003 FC 1229 at para 10). The Respondent has not identified the documents it objects to on this basis, nor has it provided the record that was before the Associate Judge. [ADDRESS] is not in a position to rule on this objection without a proper foundation. [ 18 ] The Respondent also objects to the Applicant’s inclusion of the [NAME] and “any other documents that were rejected by Associate Judge Shannon” on the basis that these documents “were clearly of no consequence to his decision.” I find that the [NAME] and the Notice of Motion are properly before the Court given the Applicant’s grounds of appeal, which squarely raise arguments related to the fairness of the Associate Judge’s rejection of these documents in the lead up to the hearing of the Rule 317 motion. Their inclusion in the record will assist the Court in understanding the issues raised in their proper context ( [NAME] v Canada , 2010 FC 577 at para 9).

V. Analysis A. No denial of procedural fairness [ 19 ] The Applicant asserts that the Associate Judge committed an error in the manner in which he directed the motion to be pleaded, which the Applicant submits was procedurally unfair and disadvantaged him as a self-represented litigant. [ 20 ] The Applicant’s specific complaints are that: (i) the Associate Judge's “strict instructions” regarding page limits did not allow the Applicant to argue his case fully; (ii) the Court did not follow the Canadian Judicial Council, Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons , (2006) [[NAME]]; and (iii) the Associate Judge erred by issuing the [NAME] rejecting the [NAME] and the Notice of Motion. (1) No error in enforcing a strict page limit [ 21 ] I find that the Associate Judge committed no error in the exercise of his discretion to limit the length of the parties’ written submissions, which falls squarely within the powers of a case management judge under Rules 318(3) and 385(1)(a) of the Federal Courts Rules . Page limits are common in the Federal Courts Rules and are an important case management tool for moving complex proceedings toward a hearing on their merits. (2) No failure in the treatment of the Applicant as a self-represented litigant [ 22 ] I also disagree with the Applicant’s suggestion that the Associate Judge failed to take into consideration his status as a self-represented litigant or follow the [NAME]. This can be seen in the Decision itself. In deciding whether the Applicant had shown a basis justifying an expanded scope of disclosure under Rule 317, the Associate Judge noted that the Applicant had failed to pinpoint relevant allegations of bias and procedural issues in his Notice of Application for Judicial Review as he was required to do in order to support a request for disclosure that went beyond the Final Authority as the relevant decision maker. The Associate Judge was entitled to stop there; instead, he reviewed the Applicant’s 169 single-spaced page Notice of Application for such allegations and ruled on the only relevant allegation, which was drawn to the attention of the Court by the Respondent, not the Applicant. [ 23 ] The Applicant’s repeated submission that the [NAME] “takes precedence” over the Associate Judge’s Directions, is not accurate. While the [NAME] was endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada in [NAME] v [NAME] , 2017 SCC 23 at paragraph 4, the [NAME]’s stated purpose is to provide “guidance;” it does not relieve self-represented litigants of the requirement to make out their own case, nor does it relieve them of the obligation to adhere to the Federal Courts Rules and Directions of the Court ( [NAME] v [COMPANY] of Canada , 2018 FC 525 at para 30, [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FC 204 at para 23). (3) No error in refusing the [NAME] or the Notice of Motion [ 24 ] The Associate Judge cannot be said to have acted on a wrong principle in refusing to consider the [NAME]. This document was not properly before the Court on the Applicant’s motion having been rejected as non-compliant with the [NAME]. The Applicant’s written submissions on this appeal do not allege that the [NAME] is relevant to the issue of the completeness of the CTR; rather, the Applicant identifies [NAME] as a “material witness” whose purpose is to show that the grievance-related allegations are “not based in truth or fact.” The Applicant has not shown that the Associate Judge made a palpable and overriding error in failing to accept and consider this document. [ 25 ] I also find that the Notice of Motion was properly rejected; it did not constitute a complete motion capable of being heard concurrently with the Rule 317 motion. The document failed to comply with Rule 364(2) of the Federal Courts Rules and was properly rejected under both Rule 72(2)(a) as irregular and Rule 318(3) as non-compliant with the terms of the [NAME]. I disagree that the Notice of Motion can be characterized as “a minor deficiency” that the [NAME] suggests may be rectified as an accommodation to a self-represented litigant. [ 26 ] Moreover, the Applicant is not prejudiced by the rejection of the Notice of Motion given that the [NAME] provided that any further motions could be raised at a case management conference after the Court rendered its decision on the Rule 317 motion. [ 27 ] The Applicant has not shown that he was denied procedural fairness. B. No error of law shown [ 28 ] The Applicant has also raised errors of law related to the Associate Judge’s application of Rule 317. The specific issues cited in the Applicant’s written representations are whether: (i) the general application of Rules 317 and 318 should be used to only allow documents that were before the administrative decision maker to be included in the CTR; and (ii) the Rules 317 and 318 exceptions for procedural fairness violations, apprehension of bias, abuse of authority, ulterior motive and inadequacy of the CTR should be applied to expand disclosure to include documents that were not before the decision maker. [ 29 ] The Associate Judge’s articulation of the scope of Rule 317 is reviewable on the standard of correctness; his application of that law to the Applicant’s production request is a question of mixed fact and law, which is reviewable for palpable and overriding error. [ 30 ] The Applicant has not identified any part of the Decision in which the Associate Judge erred in his articulation of the scope of Rule 317, and I find no error of law. Not only did the Associate Judge correctly hold that the Applicant is not entitled to documents other than those that are both relevant and were in the possession of the Final Authority at the time it made its decision, he expressly recognized that the scope of materials subject to disclosure may be broader (citing Jewish National Fund of [COMPANY] v Canada (National Revenue) , 2025 FCA 114 [ JNF ] and [NAME] v Canada (Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities) , 2006 FC 720 [ [NAME] ]). [ 31 ] The Associate Judge correctly held that a broader scope of disclosure could be justified if the Applicant’s Notice of Application alleges that the decision maker displayed a reasonable apprehension of bias or breached procedural fairness rights ( JNF at paras 13-14 and [NAME] at para 50). [ 32 ] The Associate Judge found a single allegation of procedural unfairness in the Applicant’s Notice of Application related to the delay in the issuance of the Final Authority decision, but found it was not relevant to the Applicant’s request for disclosure. The Applicant has baldly alleged that all of his document requests from paragraphs 6(b) to (y) of his Notice of Application relate to this allegation and “other procedural fairness violations,” as he states, “the truth should have been investigated, gathered, and included in the tribunal record by the first stage Initial Authority Grievance Analyst.” [ 33 ] I can find no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Judge’s assessment of the grounds for judicial review in the Notice of Application. I also find no error in the finding that the Applicant’s document requests do not relate to the allegation of excessive delay on the part of the Final Authority in rendering its decision. The Applicant’s submissions only serve to confirm the Associate Judge’s view that the Applicant’s allegations of bias and concerns about procedural fairness are concerns directed at individuals and authorities other than the Final Authority as the relevant decision maker. [ 34 ] Finally, I wish to address two aspects of the relief sought in the Applicant’s Notice of Motion on this motion. The Applicant seeks production of all documents without redaction; however, no error of law in respect of this aspect of the Decision has been raised and there is therefore no basis to make such an order. The Applicant also requested that alternative or non-binding mediation be made available. The Applicant is encouraged to raise the possibility of engaging the Court’s dispute resolution services under Rule 386(1) of the Federal Courts Rules , with the Respondent and/or the Associate Judge as part of case management of the proceeding.

VI. Conclusion [ 35 ] The Applicant has failed to raise any basis warranting this Court’s intervention: the Applicant was not denied procedural fairness, and the Decision reveals no error in law related to the scope of production under Rules 317 and 318 of the Federal Courts Rules . [ 36 ] This motion is therefore dismissed.

VII. Costs [ 37 ] The Respondent submits that the appeal was ill-conceived and warrants costs to deter future unnecessary motions by the Applicant. The Respondent asks for a lump sum costs award of $1,000.00, payable forthwith. [ 38 ] I am ordering that the Applicant pay the Respondent its costs in the amount of $1,000.00, based on its success on the motion and the fact that it is in line with a typical cost award on an appeal of an associate judge’s order. It is not intended to deter the Applicant from continuing to pursue his rights in this proceeding.

ORDER in T-3847-25 THIS COURT ORDERS that : The motion is dismissed; and The Respondent shall have its costs fixed at $1,000.00, payable by the Applicant forthwith. "Allyson Whyte Nowak" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-3847-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO, PURSUANT TO rULE 369 OF THE fEDERAL cOURTS rULES , sor/98-106 rEASONS AND

ORDER: WHYTE NOWAK J. DATED: July 9, 2026 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY: [NAME] For The Applicant (ON HIS OWN BEHALF) [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Attorney General of Canada Saskatoon, Saskatchewan For The Respondent