Date: 19990915
Docket: T-1874-97
IN RE an application for a remedy pursuant to s. 77(1) of the Official Languages Act, 1985, R.S.C. 1985,4 `h Supp., c. 31
Between:
DANIEL DUGUAY,
Applicant (Plaintiff),
AND:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN -and NATIONAL DEFENCE,
Respondents (Defendants),
AND:
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES,
Mis-en-cause.
REASONS FOR ORDER
NADON J.
[1] This is an application for a remedy pursuant to s. 77 of the Official Languages Act, S.C. 1988, c. 38 ("the OLA"). Under that section the Court may grant such remedy as it considers
Page: 2
appropriate in the circumstances if it concludes that a federal institution has failed to comply with the OLA.
[2] The applicant was a francophone soldier assigned to Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Greenwood, a unilingual English base. He was subsequently released by the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) for sexual misconduct. The applicant alleged that the working environment at Greenwood was not favourable to the use of French and that he was prohibited from speaking in that language. This situation caused him to suffer stress which he said contributed to the conduct that led to his release from the CAF.
FACTS
[3] The applicant enrolled in the CAF in June 1991, in the Royal 22d Regiment. He married in 1984 and the couple had two sons, born in 1987 and 1990 respectively.
[4] In 1991 the applicant left the infantry and became a fireman. He was admitted to fireman's training, at qualification level 3, beginning on April 2, 1981 and ending on July 12, 1991 at the Canadian Forces Base (CFB) at Borden in Ontario. In August 1991 he was assigned to the fire service at CFB Greenwood in Nova Scotia to take level 4 training.
[5] The language of work at CFB Greenwood is English. The applicant had problems speaking in that language. He said this affected his relations with his colleagues and his work performance and caused him a great deal of anxiety and stress. The applicant told his superiors
Page: 3
several times at the start of this relocation that he did not have the necessary qualification level in English for the position held.
[6] In January 1992 the applicant was signed to give a course on fire science to colleagues. Two of his superiors who attended the course noted the applicant's inability to communicate his knowledge in English. With the help of a bilingual superior the applicant on February 12, 1992 drafted a memo in English requesting a training course to improve his use of English. He subsequently met with Capt. Millman, who authorized him to take tests to determine his level of competence in English. The applicant failed the aptitude test.
[7] In view of his problems the applicant then agreed with his superiors that he would only speak English at work so as to improve his mastery of that language. He reserved the right to ask questions in French, to ensure that he had understood instructions correctly. Nonetheless he was prohibited from speaking French two weeks later. A francophone colleague was criticized for speaking to him in French in the scrambling room. A few months later, on June 11, 1992, at a meeting of fire station chiefs, it was decided that for reasons of safety all operations in the scrambling room would be carried out in English.
[8] A few weeks after failing the aptitude test in English the applicant was allowed to take an English course at the St. Jean military base from August 24 to October 30, 1992. At the end of the course the applicant had attained level 2221, whereas the functional level required to take a course like level 4 fireman training in English is 3 333.
Page: 4
[9] On his return to CFB Greenwood on November 2, 1992 the military police questioned the applicant about allegations of sexual assaults on his elder son. The police filed charges to which the applicant pleaded not guilty in the Nova Scotia Provincial Court on December 17, 1992. These charges were dropped in July 1993.
[10] The applicant was referred for a psychiatric assessment in connection with the sexual assault allegations. On January 20 and 26, 1993 he met with Maj. Louis Bérard, a psychiatrist in the CAF. During the session the applicant disclosed that he had assaulted a five-year-old girl when he was a teenager. In his assessment report, Maj. Bérard concluded that the applicant suffered from mixed pedophilia. He recommended that if the applicant was allowed to continue with his military career he should be transferred to a francophone environment for treatment.
[11] On March 5, 1993 the CFB Greenwood building engineering officer, who was responsible for the fire service, recommended to the Personnel Careers Other Ranks Branch (PCORB) that the applicant be released on account of his sexual misconduct under item 5(d) of
Page: 5 the table added to s. 15.01 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders.' He gave the following reasons:
[TRANSLATION]
You have demonstrated a type of sexual conduct which is not consistent with acceptable moral standards and which makes you unfit and undesirable for a career in the Canadian Forces. Accordingly, your release from the CF ... is currently being considered.
[12] On March 11, 1993 the applicant signed the proposed notice of release and did not object to his release from the CAF. The applicant received no salary while his release was being reviewed. On March 16, on behalf of the base commander, the base technical services officer informed the PCORB of his recommendation that the applicant be released. He further informed the PCORB that the applicant had requested psychotherapy, but he would take no action on this request until a decision was made on the release by the Career Review Board.
15.01(1) An officer or non-commissioned member may be released, during his service, only in accordance with this article and the table hereto.
Category - Completed service
Reasons for release - Not advantageously employable
Special instructions - Applies to the release of an officer or non-commissioned member:
- because of an inherent lack of ability or aptitude to meet military classification or trade standards; or
- who is unable to adapt to military life; or
- who, either wholly or chiefly because of the conditions of military life or other factors beyond his control, develops personal weaknesses or has domestic or other personal problems that seriously impair his usefulness to or impose an excessive administrative burden on the Canadian Forces.
Page: 6
[13] On August 23, 1993 the CFB Greenwood Squadron Commander informed the PCORB that the family and child services of the provincial government intended to separate the applicant from his family, as he had not yet taken treatment. The PCOR Director replied to the commandant on September 1, 1993 that administration of treatment was not the responsibility of the PCORB, but his staff had discussed the matter with the Health Treatment Services (HTS). Under CAF medical practice and policies the applicant should have received the treatment he needed. If there were problems finding a francophone psychiatrist, the base physician should have consulted the physician at the air command or the HTS. The PCOR Director indicated
that if a transfer to a francophone environment was necessary for treatment to be given, the appropriate action to be taken should be discussed with the PCORB. Finally, the Director stated that the absence of treatment was becoming an increasingly serious aspect of this matter.
[14] On September 9, 1993 the applicant filed a letter of objection to his release. In that letter he stated that he was entitled to receive care in his mother tongue and requested an assignment to the Royal 22nd Regiment for personal reasons.
[15] The following September 24 the applicant met with Dr. Galarneau, a francophone psychologist in Moncton, New Brunswick, at his own expense. The latter diagnosed the applicant as a regressive pedophile. Typically, this type of offender commits sexual assaults on an episodic basis, at times of extreme stress or loss of self-esteem. According to Dr. Galarneau, the stress occasioned by learning a new job and a new language simultaneously could have contributed to precipitating the conduct which the applicant was alleged to have committed. Dr. Galarneau
Page: 7
noted that the applicant should have therapy in French and the possibility of transferring him to a francophone environment should be considered.
[16] On October 22, 1993, after reviewing the applicant's file and examining the evidence, the Career Review Board recommended that the applicant be released on account of his sexual misconduct. The applicant's release was confirmed by the CAF three days later.
[17] On November 15, 1993 a military police officer signed an information stating that the applicant had sexually attacked his elder son during the period from January to December 31, 1991. On April 28, 1994 the applicant pleaded guilty to the charge contained in this information.
[18] On January 27, 1995 the applicant filed a complaint with the Montreal regional office of the Commissioner for Official Languages (COL). The report prepared by the COL investigator sets out the allegation as follows:
[TRANSLATION]
The applicant was unable to obtain psychiatric services in French and this contributed to his release from the CAF. He further stated that the work environment at Canadian Forces Base Greenwood (Nova Scotia) was not favourable to the use of French. He mentioned that a supervisor had prohibited him from speaking French to his colleagues. He stated that this situation had caused him stress and that this had contributed to the conduct which led to his dismissal.
[19] In his report, the COL investigator concluded that the CAF had not observed the
applicant's language rights, first by transferring to a unilingual English base, and second, by not
Page: 8
giving him the medical treatment requested in his mother tongue. There had been discrimination against the applicant as compared with his anglophone colleagues. The COL accordingly recommended that the Department of National Defence:
[TRANSLATION]
henceforth take all necessary measures to ensure that firemen assigned to a military installation where the language of work is not their language first possess functional ability in the second language;
(2) amend all relevant directives as speedily as possible to ensure that soldiers whose cases are considered by a Career Review Board can receive the medical treatment they need in the official language of their choice.
ANALYSIS
[20] The application is seeking a ruling by this Court that the applicant's language rights have been infringed by the CAF and a finding that he was unfairly released on account of this infringement.
[21] The applicant is seeking an order reinstating him in the CAF with the rank of corporal. He is claiming damages for loss of salary, loss of opportunity for promotion, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation totalling $180,250, as well as punitive damages of $30,000. Finally, he is seeking an order restoring his pension fund.
[22] The application at bar raises the following questions:
Page: 9
I. 2.
3.
Did the CAF infringe the applicant's language rights?
If so, did the infringement of language rights contribute to the applicant's unsuitable behaviour towards his son and so to his release from the CAF?
What is the appropriate remedy?
1. Applicant's language rights
a.
Assignment to CFB Greenwood
[23]
Section 36 of Part V of the OLA provides that federal institutions must ensure that the
work environment is conducive to employment in both official languages and to their use in the
designated regions and the National Capital Region. The section reads as follows:
36. (1) Il incombe aux institutions fédérales, dans la région de la capitale nationale et dans les régions, secteurs ou lieux désignés au titre de l'alinéa 35(1)a):
a) de fournir à leur personnel, dans les deux langues officielles, tant les services qui lui sont destinés, notamment à titre individuel ou à titre de services auxiliaires centraux, que la documentation et le matériel d'usage courant et généralisé produits par elles-mêmes ou pour leur compte;
36. (1) Every federal institution has the duty, within the National Capital Region and in any part or in any place outside Canada, that is prescribed for the purpose of paragraph 35(1)(a), to
(a) make available in both official languages to officers and employees of the institution
(i)services that are provided to officers and employees, including services that are provided to them as individuals and services that are centrally provided by the institution to support them in the performance of their duties, and
(ii) regularly and widely used work instruments produced by or on behalf of that or any other federal institution;
b) de veiller à ce que les systèmes informatiques d'usage courant et généralisé et acquis ou produits par elles à compter du 1 er janvier 1991 puissent être utilisés dans l'une ou l'autre des langues officielles;
(b) ensure that regularly and widely used automated systems for the processing and communication of data acquired or produced by the institution on or after January 1, 1991 can be used in either official language; and
c) de veiller à ce que, là oÿ il est indiqué de le faire pour que le milieu de travail soit propice à l'usage effectif des deux langues officielles, les supérieurs soient aptes à communiquer avec leurs subordonnés dans celles-ci et à ce que la haute direction soit en mesure de fonctionner dans ces deux langues.
(c) ensure that,
(i)where it is appropriate or necessary in order to create a work environment that is conducive to the effective use of both official languages, supervisors are able to communicate in both official languages with officers and employees of the institution in carrying out their supervisory responsibility, and
(ii) any management group that is responsible for the general direction of the institution as a whole has the capacity to function in both official languages.
Page: 10
36(2) Il leur incombe également de veiller à ce que soient prises, dans les régions, secteurs ou lieux visés au paragraphe (1), toutes autres mesures possibles permettant de créer et de maintenir en leur sein un milieu de travail propice à l'usage effectif des deux langues officielles et qui permettre à leur personnel d'utiliser l'une ou l'autre.
36(2) Every federal institution has the duty to ensure that, within the National Capital Region and in any part or region of Canada, or in any place outside Canada, that is prescribed for the purpose of paragraph 35(I)(a), such measures are taken in addition to those required under subsection (1) as can reasonably be taken to establish and maintain work environments of the institution that are conducive to the effective use of both official languages and accommodate the use of either official language by its officers and employees.
[24] Canadian Forces Administrative Order (CFAO) 9-53, dealing with the language of instruction in both official languages, is designed to guarantee all members of the CAF equality of access to promotion opportunities by providing programs of individual instruction and professional development in both official languages consistent with the spirit of the Official Languages Act. CAFO 9-53 states that if training is not available in the first official language of candidates, they must have at least a functional level in their second language, that is level 3333. before taking the training.
[25] The Department of National Defence policy provides that unilingual personnel will generally not be assigned to units operating in a language other than their own. However, it may happen depending on the CAF's requirements that a member is assigned to a different linguistic unit. In such circumstances, if possible, the member is offered language training. Sending a member to a different language region without training only occurs in exceptional circumstances.
[26] According to the information obtained by the COL investigator, new firemen receive initial training (level 3) at the fire school at CFB Borden. They are then assigned to a station
Page: 11 located in a military facility where they are given on-the-job training. At the time the applicant was transferred to CFB Greenwood, the on-the-job training (level 4) was available in French at CFB Bagotville in Quebec.
[27] 1 consider that the applicant's language rights were infringed by his assignment to take firemen's training in a unilingual English military base. On his arrival at Greenwood the applicant had language skills below the functional level required by CFAO 9-53. Nevertheless, he was required to take the firemen's course in English. It was not until a year after his arrival that he was able to enrol in an English course to improve his skills in that language. By taking that course he obtained level 2221, a level below the operating level.
b. Absence of medical treatment
[28] The evidence showed that there was a misunderstanding between the CFB Greenwood managers and the PCORB as to the interpretation of the policies governing the availability of treatment and assignments when a case is being reviewed by a Board. The result of these differences of opinion was that the applicant could not receive treatment for over nine months.
[29] It appeared from the COL investigation report that under CAF practice and policy the applicant was entitled to medical treatment. This is confirmed by a message signed by Maj.-Gen. Wendy A. Clay, Director General of CAF Health Services, issued in September 1997 following receipt of the COL investigation report:
Page: 12
[TRANSLATION]
This office was recently informed by OLPSP that a CF soldier did not receive all the necessary psychiatric/psychological treatment since there was difficulty providing this treatment in the official language of his choice. It appears that in the specific case of this soldier the medical authorities had taken the appropriate actions since [they] had recommended that the soldier be assigned as soon as possible to a unit where treatment in the soldier's official language was readily available. Unfortunately, it appears that because of a pending release the transfer did not take place. Accordingly, the soldier did not receive the best medical care.
All medical personnel are reminded that CF soldiers must receive the medical care required by their state of health at all times. In some cases, especially when psychological or psychiatric care is recommended, it may become necessary to provide this care in the soldier's official language. Medical staff should ensure that such care is given whether the soldier is on the point of being released from the CF or not.
[30] The applicant needed to have psychiatric treatment in French. Section 36 of the OLA provided that personnel services must be offered in both official languages in bilingual regions. As CFB Greenwood is located in a region designated unilingual English, the plaintiff did not have the right under the OLA to receive care in French at that location. However, the absence of French treatment resulted from being transferred to a unilingual English base in violation of his language rights. It would have been advisable to transfer the applicant to another base so he could receive treatment in his language. The fact that his release had been recommended did not affect his right to have medical services in French.
[31 ] The CAF have rules governing the particular status and assignment of soldiers for personal reasons. Under CFAO 20-4, a soldier having a problem of a personal nature that prevents him from holding employment without restriction may request a new assignment. Even if the CFB Greenwood command did not have the authority to approve moving the applicant to a francophone environment, I feel that the command should have taken steps to request the
Page: 13
competent authorities at headquarters to transfer the applicant to a location where he could receive the proper care. This was never done.
2. The applicant's unsuitable conduct
[32] The applicant's principal claim what that the stress caused by his assignment to a unilingual English base without first having training in English led to his sexual misconduct towards his son and was directly responsible for his release from the army.
[33] In my opinion, this allegation is entirely without basis. First, the count to which the applicant pleaded guilty stated that he assaulted his son between January 1 and December 31, 1991. The applicant was not transferred to Greenwood until August 1991. The sexual assaults apparently began well before the transfer to an anglophone environment and the stress that resulted from that.
[34] Similarly, the applicant's allegation is not supported by medical evidence. In his report Maj. Bérard, a psychiatrist serving with the CAF, noted that the applicant had been given a psychiatric assessment when he was fifteen because of a sexual assault he committed on a fiveyear old girl. He diagnosed the applicant as a mixed pedophile. In other words, the applicant's pedophilia was not of a specific nature: he in fact assaulted a girl as well as a boy and assaulted someone else's child as well as his own. Maj. Bérard's report did not deal with the possible existence of a link between the assault committed and the stress experienced in the applicant's work environment.
Page: 14
[35] A second report, that of Dr. Galarneau, the psychologist consulted by the applicant, was
submitted. The relevant passage from that reads as follows:
In summary, this is a 31-year old married man who present many traits of what is referred to in the literature as a "regressed pedophile". Such an individual is characterized by a previous level of adequate adjustment but reverts back to inappropriate sexual partners, as a substitute for their adult relationship, when it has become conflictual and emotionally unfulfilling. Typically, such an offender wil l commit sexually abusive acts on an episodic basis, often in time of extreme stress or loss of self-esteem. Conversely, a "fixated" pedophile is someone who always had a sexual preference for children and who displays a chronic level of maladapted socio-sexual adjustment.
The phallometric results support this hypothesis and, thus, would suggest that Mr. Duguay's sexual acting-out is not rooted in deviant sexual behaviour per se. Other dynamics seem to be at play here. Although this should be investigated further, it would appear that Mr. Duguay's social and personal situation at the time of the offense, i.e. stress of learning a new job and a new language simultaneously was an important precipitating factor.
(My emphasis)
[36] It is important to note that Dr. Galarneau s report, like that of Maj. Bérard, was filed in support of the applicant's affidavit. Dr. Galarneau and Maj. Bérard did not sign the affidavit entered in evidence. Accordingly, neither Dr. Galarneau nor Maj. Bérard was subject to crossexamination. I hasten to add that in his report Dr. Galarneau acknowledged that his conclusion that the stress suffered by the applicant was the reason for the assault required further study.
[37] Additionally, the affidavit by John L. Dimock, a psychiatrist in private practice, was entered in evidence by the respondent. Paragraphs 9 to 16 of Dr. Dimock's affidavit are relevant and I set them out below:
Page: 15
9. THAT 1 have read Daniel Duguay's military medical file. The file reveals that Mr. Duguay was treated as an in-patient for thirteen days between January 20 and February 2, 1993 at the military hospital at CFB Valcartier.
10. THAT I am of the opinion that further to that period of hospitalization an appropriate diagnosis of pedophilia was made.
11. THAT the diagnosis and treatment of pedophilia is a specialized and lengthy process which must be conducted by a forensic psychiatrist.
12. THAT patients who want to obtain treatment for pedophilia are placed on a waiting list for admission to a forensic psychiatric unit.
13. THAT the absence of psychological support between the time his diagnostic was made by Major L. Bérard in February 1993 and the day of his release from the Canadian Armed Forces would not aggravate his condition of pedophilia.
14. THAT pedophilia as a medical condition leads to sexual preference but does not lead to incompetence in terms of choosing when to exercise that preference.
15. THAT at all times in spite of his condition as a pedophile, Mr. Duguay was competent to make a decision regarding his sexual conduct.
16. THAT pedophil is is biologically driven and is not caused in any way by external factors such as stress. Stress however may be a contributing factor.
[38] Dr. Dimock has expertise in the field of sexual assault and deviance. He reviewed the applicant's medical file and considered that the diagnosis made by Maj. Bérard was correct. According to Dr. Dimock, pedophilia is a medical condition causing a sexual preference for young children. This condition is caused by biological factors, not by external factors such as stress, although the stress may be a contributing factor. However, the fact remains that pedophil is does not in any way affect a person's judgment at the time he or she exercises this preference. Accordingly, even when under stress the applicant was perfectly able to make a decision regarding his sexual conduct. It was his own misconduct that led to the loss of his employment.
[39] I prefer Dr. Dimock's opinion to that of Dr. Galarneau. As I indicated earlier, Dr. Dimock is the only expert who filed an affidavit. Accordingly, the applicant was able to cross-examine
Page: 16
him but did not do so. I accept Dr. Dimock's opinion without reservation and thus come to the conclusion that the applicant's release from the CAF did not in any way result from an infringement of his language rights.
3. Appropriate remedy
[40]
Section 77(1) and (4) of the OLA gives the Federal Court the discretion to grant a remedy
for infringement of the language rights protected by the OLA. The section reads as follows:
77(1) Quiconque a saisi le commissaire d'une plainte visant une obligation ou un droit prévus aux articles 4 à 7 et 10 à 13 ou aux parties I V ou V, ou fondée sur l'article 91 peut former un recours devant le tribunal sous le régime de la présente partie.
77(1) Any person who has made a complaint to the Commissioner in respect of a right or duty under sections 4 to 7, sections 10 to 13 or Part IV or V, or in respect of section 91, may apply to the Court for a remedy under this Part.
(4) Le tribunal peut, s'il estime qu'une institution fédérale ne s'est pas conformée à la présente loi, accorder la réparation qu'il estime convenable et juste eu égard aux circonstances.
(4) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), this Court concludes that a federal institution has failed to comply with this Act, the Court may grant such remedy as it considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
[41] The award of damages is a matter for the Court. In Lavigne v. Canada'- Pinard J. wrote
the following:
Finally, the Official Languages Act is a statute designed to create practical and effective rights and obligations. To accomplish this objective, and to ensure that the Act is indeed an effective instrument for the protection of the language rights of Canadians, damages must be included among the realm of remedies available to the Court under subsection 77(4). The ability of the Court to award damages is, in my view, essential to the enforcement of guaranteed quasiconstitutional rights.
[1997] 1 F.C. 305, aff. by [1998] F.C.J. No. 686 (F.C.A.).
Page: 17
[42] In the case at bar the applicant suffered discrimination compared with his anglophone or bilingual colleagues. The only part of the training for a fireman's occupation in which he succeeded after three attempts was the test of driving a fire truck. This situation caused him anguish and stress. The applicant was hospitalized twice for abdominal pains when he was at St. Jean. He stated that these problems were related to the stress caused by his position. Additionally, the applicant should have received psychiatric treatment in French during the period March to October 1993. In the case at bar I consider that damages of $6,000 represent an appropriate remedy in the circumstances.
[43] In view of my finding that the applicant did not establish a causal link between the infringement of his language rights by the CAF and his release, he will not be entitled to any compensation for loss of salary and fringe benefits.
[44] As to the application for punitive damages, McIntyre J. of the Supreme Court of Canada
wrote in Vorvis v. Insurance Corporation ofBritish Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1085, at 1107:
Moreover, punitive damages may only be awarded in respect of conduct which is of such nature as to be deserving of punishment because of its harsh, vindictive, reprehensible and malicious nature. I do not suggest that I have exhausted the adjectives which could describe the conduct capable of characterizing a punitive award, but in any case where such an award is made the conduct must be extreme in its nature and such that by any reasonable standard it is deserving of full condemnation and punishment.
[45] The applicant stated that he was prevented from speaking in French. The evidence was
that the applicant had concluded an agreement with the fire service management by which he would only speak in English to improve his mastery of that language. The report of the COL
Page: 18
investigator indicated that the applicant was criticized by his superior for speaking in French. A person questioned by the investigator about this mentioned, however, that the comments were not made in an unpleasant way and were intended to remind the applicant that he had to use English so as to learn the language more quickly.
[46] Undoubtedly, the work environment at the CFB Greenwood fire service was conducive to the use of English. The interviews made by the COL investigator confirmed that the soldiers assigned to the scrambling room were required to speak in English for safety reasons. However, as the investigator reported:
[TRANSLATION]
It also appeared from these interviews that, despite the complainant's allegations to the contrary, the work environment did not appear to be discriminatory against francophones. The people we met with indicated that when francophones were not in the scrambling room they could usually speak French among themselves. We also learned that francophones who had greater difficulty with English than the complainant were working at CFB Greenwood at the time and it had not prevented them from learning the fireman's trade.
[47] The applicant did not show that the CAF acted in a harsh, vindictive, reprehensible or
malicious way. Accordingly, there is no basis for awarding punitive damages.
Page: 19
[48] The application is allowed in part. The respondents are ordered to pay the applicant the sum of $6,000. The applicant will be entitled to his costs.
Marc Nadon
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario September 15, 1999
Certified true translation -
Bernard Olivier, LL. B.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT No.: T-1874-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: DANIEL DUGUAY v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
PLACE OF HEARING: QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 16, 1999
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: NADON J.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 15, 1999
APPEARANCES:
ROBERT PARENT (418) 522-2020 FOR THE APPLICANT
GUY BLOUIN (613) 996-6368 FOR THE RESPONDENT
ELIZABETH GRACE (613) 996-6368 FOR THE MIS-EN-CAUSE
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
ROBERT PARENT (418) 522-2020 FOR THE APPLICANT
BUY BLOUIN (613) 996-6368 FOR THE RESPONDENT
ELIZABETH GRACE (613) 996-6368 FOR THE MIS-EN-CAUSE