Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Mr. Choi's application for judicial review was struck for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

• Simultaneous filing of both a Commission review request and a Federal Court application contravened the exhaustion of remedies doctrine.

• The RCMP Superintendent dismissed the underlying complaint, finding officers had no duty to sign civil lawsuit documents and the arrest warning was justified.

• Assertions of mental health barriers to the Commission's review process were contradicted by Mr. Choi's own prompt and substantive filings the day after receiving the Report.

• Allegations of institutional bias, lack of independence, and breaches of the Accessible Canada Act, Canadian Human Rights Act, and Charter section 15 were unsupported by any particulars or credible evidence.

• Costs in the amount of $500 were awarded to the Attorney General of Canada.

The incident at the RCMP detachment

On January 9, 2025, Munchang Choi attended an RCMP detachment in North Vancouver and asked an officer to sign legal documents that appeared to be related to a civil lawsuit. The officer refused the request and asked Mr. Choi to leave. During their interaction, Mr. Choi stated that he would call 9-1-1, to which the officer responded that he would arrest him if he did so, because it is a criminal offence to call 9-1-1 without valid reason. Mr. Choi did not call 9-1-1 and eventually left.

The complaint and the RCMP's findings

The next day, Mr. Choi filed a complaint with the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission of the RCMP (the "Commission"). Pursuant to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, RSC 1985, c R-10, this complaint was initially investigated by the RCMP itself. By a letter dated March 11, 2025, the Superintendent in charge of the North Vancouver detachment dismissed Mr. Choi's complaint. The Superintendent found that RCMP officers have no duty to sign or receive documents related to a civil dispute and that the officer was justified to warn Mr. Choi that he would be arrested if he made an unjustified 9-1-1 call. This letter was delivered to Mr. Choi on March 17, 2025.

Simultaneous pursuit of two avenues of review

On March 18, 2025, the very next day after receiving the report, Mr. Choi took two concurrent actions: he filed an application for judicial review in the Federal Court of Canada and wrote to the Commission to request a review of the report. Under the statutory scheme, section 45.7(1) of the Act provides that a complainant who is not satisfied with a report under section 45.64 may, within 60 days after receiving the report, refer the complaint in writing to the Commission for review. Rather than waiting for the conclusion of that review process, Mr. Choi launched both processes simultaneously. This contravened the rule requiring the exhaustion of administrative remedies.

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion to strike Mr. Choi's judicial review application, arguing that he had failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to him under statute. Justice Sébastien Grammond of the Federal Court noted that judicial review is a discretionary remedy and is usually not available where there is an adequate alternative remedy. The Court relied on established precedents, including Strickland v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 37, and Harelkin v University of Regina, [1979] 2 SCR 561, which require litigants to exhaust administrative appeals or reviews provided by statute before turning to judicial review. The Court also confirmed that where a litigant brings an application for judicial review before exhausting administrative remedies, the Court may strike the application on a preliminary motion, citing Yatar v TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2024 SCC 8.

Mr. Choi's arguments for an exception

Mr. Choi submitted that his application should nevertheless be allowed to proceed because he was "procedurally unable to access the internal appeal process under s. 45.7(1) of the RCMP Act due to mental health disability, repeated institutional obstruction, lack of procedural fairness, and absence of accommodations." He further alleged that the RCMP and the Commission mishandled his prior complaints and acted "with bias and lack of independence." Additionally, he contended that the RCMP and the Commission were in breach of the Accessible Canada Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by failing to offer accessible procedures, disability-based accommodation, or trauma-informed processes.

The Court's rejection of the exception arguments

Justice Grammond found none of Mr. Choi's arguments persuasive. Regarding the allegation of bias, the only evidence Mr. Choi provided was what appeared to be a complaint he made in 2024 in respect of an access to information request. He did not provide the investigation report nor any other information that would allow the Court to assess his contention that the investigator or the Commission was biased. The Court emphasized that allegations of partiality and bias are serious and should never be made lightly, citing Arthur v Canada (Attorney General), 2001 FCA 223. The mere fact that Mr. Choi was unsatisfied with the outcome did not establish bias or lack of independence, and his allegation that he had "no reasonable prospect of receiving a fair and impartial hearing" from the Commission was found to be entirely unwarranted. As for the mental health barriers, the Court observed that Mr. Choi's own conduct directly contradicted his claims: the day after receiving the report, he filed a four-page request to the Commission to review the matter, as well as a notice of application for judicial review, demonstrating that despite the alleged vagueness of the information regarding a review by the Commission, Mr. Choi knew exactly what to do and was quickly able to overcome any alleged barriers related to his mental health condition. The Court also found that Mr. Choi's assertion that the Commission had failed to offer accessible procedures was entirely devoid of substance, as he did not say what procedures, accommodations, or processes the Commission should have offered, nor did he identify any shortcoming of the existing procedures. His statutory and constitutional claims likewise offered no particulars.

The ruling and outcome

Justice Grammond granted the Attorney General's motion to strike, concluding that Mr. Choi had not put forward any credible basis allowing the Court to question the adequacy of a review by the Commission, and the circumstances did not justify an exception to the rule requiring the exhaustion of administrative remedies. The application for judicial review was struck without leave to amend, as the defect affecting the application was not one that could be cured by amendment. The style of cause was amended to substitute the Attorney General of Canada for the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP as the respondent. In favour of the successful party, the Attorney General of Canada, the Court ordered Mr. Choi to pay the sum of $500 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.