Deigan v. Canada (Attorney General), 2001 FCT 207

Date: 20010320

Docket: T-1056-98

Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 207

BETWEEN:

                                       RUSSELL DEIGAN

                                                                                         Applicant

                                               - and -

                       ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

                                                                                     Respondent

                       REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

TREMBLAY-LAMER J.:

[1]    This is an application for judicial review filed by Mr. Russel Deigan (the applicant) of a reconsideration decision of Ms. Rosemary Vondette Simpson (the adjudicator) dated March 31, 1998, wherein she denied his grievance for indefinite suspension, but allowed his grievance against termination of employment from the Public Service of Canada, to the extent that he is to receive compensation in lieu of reinstatement equal to six month's pay.

[2]    The applicant submits that the adjudicator made an erroneous finding in a capricious or perverse manner by concluding that the bond of trust between the applicant and the respondent had been irretrievably broken by the letters.

[3]    It is well recognized^[1] that patent unreasonableness is the appropriate standard in a judicial review of a decision of an adjudicator under the Public Service Staff Relations Act.^[2]

[4]    At the hearing before the adjudicator it was conceded that the applicant's behaviour was reprehensible and deserving of some disciplinary sanction.

[5]    Thus, the principal issue before the adjudicator was the appropriate quantum of penalty to be levied against the applicant for his misconduct.

[6]    After assessing and weighing the evidence, taking into account the mitigating factors suggested by counsel, the adjudicator concluded that discharge was too severe a penalty therefore ordering six month's compensation in lieu of reinstatement, having found that the bond of trust between the applicant and the employer was "irretrievably broken".

[7]                I am satisfied that the adjudicator acted within her jurisdiction, that her findings are based on the evidence and the arguments tendered before her. I can find no reason for the Court to interfere.

[8]                Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

(Sgd)"Danielle Tremblay-Lamer"

Judge

Vancouver, British Columbia

March 20, 2001.