l*l

Departrnent of Justice
Canada

Ministdre de la Justice
Canada

Legal SMcs
Canadan Security

Services juridiques
Service canadien du
renseignement de s6curil6
C.P. 9732, Succursale T
Ottawa, ON
K1G 4G4
T6l6copieur : (61 3) 842-1 345

tntBlhgnc Service
P O. Box 9732, Station T

Ottawa ON
K1G 4G4
Facsimile:

(61

3) 842.1345

UNCLASSIFIED

BY FAX
October I l, 2005
Susan J. Mailer

Director, Registry Operations and Policy

Public Service Labour Relations Board
P.O. Box 1525, Station "B"
Ottawa, Ontario
Kr P sv2
Dear Ms. Mailer:

RE: REFERENCE TO ADJUDICATION . DANNY PALMER

REFERENCE NO.: 16C20-34057
This follows your most recent letter dated September 26,2005, enclosing correspondence
from Mr. Palmer. On behalf of my client, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (the
"Se,rvice"), t thank you for giving me this opportunity to respond'

Mr. Palmer's letter brings forward numerous issues and makes several requests to the
Public Service Labour Relations Board ("ttre Board") which have already been addressed
in previous correspondence either by the Board or myself. Thus, I do not intend to
respond to every single issue raised by Mr. Palmer.

November

2l to24,2005

hearlng

As per the Board's letters dated August 25, 2004, to Mr. Palmer and myself, the hearing
thai was scheduled to be held at the end of September 20M was restricted to the issue of
timeliness. As you already know, this issue is important in this case as it goes to the very
root of the Board's jurisdiction to hear this referral to arbitration. This objection has been
raised by my client at the outset of this referral.
In the Board's letters dated August 25, 2004, the Board has identified witnesses who
would need to be called, on behalf of Mr. Palmer, to address this issue with regard to
:grievance and what he has called his "supplemental"

grievance.

Canad?i

h
t

l.

I
t
t

t
h

UNCLASSIFIED
ln its letter dated July I l, 2005, the Board has indicated that, should the presiding
adjudicator reserye his or her decision on the jurisdictional issues, the parties should be
ready to proceed with the merits of the reference.
I would be grateful for a confirmation that the objection to jurisdiction raised by the
employer with regard to the timeliness of the reference will be sole issue addressed by the
Board during the hearing to be held on November 21,2005. My client will be unable to
proceed with the merits of the case during the week of Novernber 21,2005 since one of
the key witnesses of the employer is unavailable at that time.
I would be grateful to know, in relation to that objection, whether the Board will rnaintain
its position related in its letters dated August 25, 2004. For ease of reference, I attach a
copy of the letter to Mr. Palmer dated August 25,2004.
Request for Summary of the September 30' 20M Preparatory Conference

I am of the opinion that this request ought not to be granted by the Board. As admitted by
Mr. Palmer himself, he was represented by counsel during the Septernber 30, 2004
Preparatory Conference. More than six months later, by letter dated April 18, 2005, the
Board informed the undersigned that Mr. Palmer was no longer represented by Mr.
Couturier. My client is of the opinion that it is not its responsibility, nor the Board's, to
answer questions or supplernent information to Mr. Palmer that he could have easily
obtained through his counsel when he was represented.

Security Clearance
Should the issue of timeliness be the sole matter that the Board will address on November
2l to 24,2005, my client is of the opinion that no classified information needs to be
disclosed in order to address this question. Thus, my client believes that it is not
necessary to grant a security clearance to Mr. Palmer unless a decision is rendered to
continuethe hearing and address the second objection with regard to jurisdiction (namely
that Mr. Palmer's release was not a disciplinary sanction).

ll/hiten v. Pilot Insurance

Please find, attached, a copy of this important Suprane Court of Canada decision. As
you will understand from reading it, I am of the view that this case is not applicable to the

present matter. This case dealt with whether or not punitive damages can be awarded in a
contractual matter, more specifically as it relates to an insurance claim. In that ca5e, the

I
T
!r
T
T
i

t
t
h

t
t
F
irt

-3-

UNCLASSIFIED

-nsr:er had refused to pay their client's claim under a fire insurance policy by alleging
'iar :he client had set her own house on fire. The refusal by the insurance company to
a,Jmrnister a polygraph (see paragraph24)was not the reason why the Supreme Court
a * arded the punitive damages (see paragraphs 78 et ss.).

'[nvestigrtion" of Mr. Palmerts allegations

As previously stated, as counsel for the employer, my only obligation on this file rests
'*'rth my client, the Service, and not to Mr. Palmer. It is the position of my client that the
Senic has not acted contrary to Canadian law by dismissing Mr. Palmer for lack of
performance.
Further to the request to release the "findings from the 2004 investigations", I can only
repeat the Board's position stated in its letter dated July I1,2005, in that "no undertaking
to the Board was made by CSIS".

IIr.

Pelmer's witnesses

Mr. Palmer requests that the "Board and the Director CSIS [sic] and preferable [sic] the
Honorable [sic] Ms. [sic] Mclellan provide letters of reassurance to my source ( . . . )". I
wish to make it very clear that the Service is not in the business of threatening anyone,
using threats, intimidation or reprisals against anybody. The mandate of the Service is
clearly stated in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act (the"Act"') and should
Mr. Palmer or anyone feels tfueatened, I invite these individuals to complain to the
S ecurity Intelligence Review Committee.
Ut
Furthermore, please be advised that my client is extremely concerned by the use by
Palmer, in an open letter sent by fax using his current employer's letterhead, of a sources' !
codename and methodolory. I wish to remind Mr. Palmer of his obligations and duties, o'
as an ex-employee of the Service and a person pennanently bound to secrecy pursuant to
the Security'ofinformation Act, and of section i 8 of th e

Mr.

i
{

Act.

Mr. Palmer can call any witnesses he wants to establish his case. Should some protection
be necessary because of the classified nature of the information they may give, I invite
Mr. Palmer to make the appropriate arrangernents with the Board pursuant to policy
HUM 504-l which was previously communicated to him.

I
;

f'.)

9t

UNCLASSIFIED

Conclusion

:xt

.
these answers are satisfactory. However, considering the number of recurrent
:i.sies addressed by Mr. Palmer, do not hesitate to contact me should you require any
:::Ier clarification.

}'crrs tnrly,

Gqnccl

b
d.

lq}2904
t.J