Federal court | Air Law
AIRPORTS
Not necessary that criminal conviction be made in respect of underlying charges
This was application for judicial review of director’s decision. Applicant was employed at airport and was granted airport security clearance. After security clearance was renewed, applicant was advised it would be reviewed because adverse information had been made available that raised concerns about his suitability to retain clearance. Police had found applicant in passenger seat of vehicle with $2,500 cash and 471 grams of marijuana. Applicant was charged with possession of controlled substance for purpose of trafficking. Charge was withdrawn. Director cancelled applicant’s transportation security clearance, which prevented his continued employment at airport. Application dismissed. There was no breach of procedural fairness. Applicant was advised of information that would be considered and was given opportunity to make representations, which he did. It was not necessary that criminal conviction be made in respect of underlying criminal charges in order for allegations to be relevant to decision to cancel security clearance. Applicant did not challenge underlying facts for charges made against him even though he was given opportunity to do so. Decision to cancel security clearance was reasonable.
Peles v. Canada (Attorney General) (Mar. 21, 2013, F.C., Michael D. Manson J., File No. T-1030-12) 228 A.C.W.S. (3d) 314.
Not necessary that criminal conviction be made in respect of underlying charges
This was application for judicial review of director’s decision. Applicant was employed at airport and was granted airport security clearance. After security clearance was renewed, applicant was advised it would be reviewed because adverse information had been made available that raised concerns about his suitability to retain clearance. Police had found applicant in passenger seat of vehicle with $2,500 cash and 471 grams of marijuana. Applicant was charged with possession of controlled substance for purpose of trafficking. Charge was withdrawn. Director cancelled applicant’s transportation security clearance, which prevented his continued employment at airport. Application dismissed. There was no breach of procedural fairness. Applicant was advised of information that would be considered and was given opportunity to make representations, which he did. It was not necessary that criminal conviction be made in respect of underlying criminal charges in order for allegations to be relevant to decision to cancel security clearance. Applicant did not challenge underlying facts for charges made against him even though he was given opportunity to do so. Decision to cancel security clearance was reasonable.
Peles v. Canada (Attorney General) (Mar. 21, 2013, F.C., Michael D. Manson J., File No. T-1030-12) 228 A.C.W.S. (3d) 314.
