Trempe v. International Civil Aviation Organization
Full Case Title: Gérald René Trempe c. Association du Personnel de l’OACI et Wayne Dixon; Gérald René Trempe c. Dirk Jan Goossen et Conseil de l’OACI et Jesus Ocampo, Superior Court of Quebec, Judgment of 20 November 2003
Reference Number: 2003 CanLII 44121 (QC CS)
Type of Document: Judicial decisions
International Organization: ICAO
Year: 2003
Issuing Body: High Court
Country: Canada
The case concerned two civil actions brought by a former employee of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), headquartered in Montréal, following the non-renewal of his fixed-term employment contract in December 1992. The plaintiff, who had served as a translator, alleged that the abolition of his post constituted a disguised dismissal and claimed substantial pecuniary, moral and punitive damages.
In the first action, he sought damages from the ICAO Staff Association and its president, alleging inadequate representation in the context of his internal employment dispute. In the second action, he sued ICAO, members of its Council and senior officials, claiming wrongful dismissal and challenging the validity and applicability of provisions of the 1951 Headquarters Agreement that conferred immunity on the organization and its officials. He further invoked the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that the immunities in question infringed his right to security of the person and access to justice.
The Attorney General of Canada intervened in the procedures at ICAO’s request and filed motions to dismiss both actions for lack of jurisdiction. It was argued that ICAO and its officials benefited from jurisdictional immunity under applicable international law and Canadian implementing legislation, and that the Superior Court therefore lacked competence to hear the claims.
The Court held that the immunities granted to ICAO under the relevant legal framework deprived it of jurisdiction over the disputes. The constitutional arguments advanced by the plaintiff, including reliance on Section 7 of the Charter, were rejected. The Court considered that the alleged psychological stress resulting from the operation of the immunity regime did not amount to a violation of the right to security of the person within the meaning recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. Concluding that ICAO and the individual defendants enjoyed immunity from jurisdiction, the Court granted the Attorney General’s declinatory motions and dismissed both actions as inadmissible.