Government employee attacks internal hiring decision without success

17. August 2021 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Labour and employment boards – Bias – Judicial review applications – Appeals – Jurisdiction – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Correctness – Employment law – Appointment Gulia v. Canada (Attorney General), [2021] F.C.J. No. 522, 2021 FCA 106, Federal Court of Appeal, June ...

The applicant is a staff sergeant of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). After a few attempts to advance his career, he received a letter from the RCMP Commissioner saying that he would not be appointed to any commissioned rank and that he should consider leaving the Force. The staff sergeant applied for judicial review, asking that the Commissioner be directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with the reasons of the Court. The application was allowed, and the Court determined that the Commissioner’s letter was subject to judicial review, as the power to recommend candidates for appointment or promotion was public in nature, and the Commissioner was exercising a public power that could not be shielded from review. Although the Commissioner’s decision attracted only a minimal degree of procedural fairness, even this was not met as there was nothing in the record that suggested the applicant had notice or an opportunity to respond. The Commissioner’s decision was unreasonable. He circumvented the disciplinary process and it was not open for the Commissioner to revisit a former incident and substitute his own judgment for that of statutory adjudication board. The Commissioner’s decision was set aside with a direction requiring the Commissioner to do as much as possible to enable the applicant’s promotion and not withhold consent once a position was available.

23. December 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Police Commission – Royal Canadian Mounted Police – Employment law – Appointment – Labour law – Disciplinary grievances – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Privilege and immunity – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Remedies – Alternative remedies Boogaard v. Canada (Attorney General), ...

The Appellant (Mr. Ayangma) unsuccessfully appealed a decision of the Supreme Court of PEI. The Supreme Court had refused Mr. Ayangma’s application for judicial review relating to a decision of the PEI Human Rights Commission. The PEI Human Rights Commission had dismissed Mr. Ayangma’s complaint relating to his job application for the Respondent (Canada Health Infoway Inc.).

26. August 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human Rights complaints – Discrimination – Employment law – Appointment – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness – Stare decisis Ayangma v Prince Edward Island (Human Rights Commission), [2014] P.E.I.J. No. 33, 2014 PECA 13, Prince ...

The Attorney General of Canada successfully appealed a judgment from the Federal Court of Appeal. The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal from the decision affirming a tribunal’s decision that Service Canada had not abused its authority when it advertised to fill a position that respondent claimed was not a new position and ought not to have been advertised.

27. December 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Public Service Staffing Tribunal – Employee classification – Abuse of public authority – Labour law – Government – Employees – Employment law – Appointment – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Canada v. Kane, [2012] S.C.J. No. 64, 2012 SCC ...

The Federal Court held that the Public Service Staffing Tribunal breached its duty of procedural fairness by excluding potentially relevant evidence without proper consideration and set aside the tribunal’s decision

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Public Service Staffing Tribunal – Employment law – Appointment – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Minority rights – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Evidence Murray v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] F.C.J. No. 682, 2011 FC 542, Federal Court, ...

The applicant was successful in seeking a judicial review order on the basis that the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“Commission”) did not conduct a sufficient/neutral investigation as it ignored crucial evidence and did not address several critical aspects of the applicant’s claim

23. November 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Investigations – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Age – Employment law – Appointment – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Bias – Evidence Hughes v. Canada (Attorney General), [2010] F.C.J. No. 1193, 2010 FC 963, Federal Court, September 27, 2010, ...

An investigation conducted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission did not meet the standard of thoroughness and was remitted back to the Commission for reconsideration

26. October 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human Rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Employment law – Appointment – Judicial review – Investigations – Procedural requirements and fairness – Bias Hughes v. Canada (Attorney General), [2010] F.C.J. No. 1036, 2010 FC 837, Federal Court, August 23, 2010, Mactavish J. ...

The Federal Court allowed an application by a group of federal employees for judicial review of a decision of the Public Service Staffing Tribunal, which had dismissed complaints of abuse of authority that had been filed by the applicants. The Court found that the Tribunal had failed to properly consider the evidence before it and that its decision was unreasonable.

27. October 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Public Service Staffing Tribunal – Abuse of public authority – Employment law – Appointment – Competition for employment – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Brown v. Canada (Attorney General), [2009] F.C.J. No. 943, ...

An employee of the Government of Canada (“Johnson”) succeeded in setting aside the settlement of his Human Rights complaint that had been approved by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) after a conciliation session where a letter of understanding had been drafted containing a number of agreements reached by the parties

27. November 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Employment law – Appointment – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Johnson v. Canada (Attorney General), [2007] F.C.J. No 1323, Federal Court, October 4, 2007, O’Keefe J. In April 2003, Johnson filed ...

A former Coast Guard employee (“Brooks”) brought a complaint of racial discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act (the “Act”) against the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (the “DFO”). The Human Rights Tribunal determined that DFO had discriminated against Brooks based on his race. The Tribunal then declined to consider the remedies of reinstatement and back pay which Brooks sought. The Attorney General of Canada brought an application for judicial review to set aside the decision that the DFO had discriminated against Brooks and Brooks applied for judicial review of the decision to decline to consider the remedies.

26. December 2006 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Employment – Appointment – Remedies – Hearings – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Brooks v. Canada (Department of Fisheries and Oceans), [2006] F.C.J. No. 1569, Federal Court, ...