Date: 19980520
Docket: A-174-96
(T-1107-91)
CORAM: MARCEAU J.A.
DENAULT J.A.
DESJARDINS J.A.
BETWEEN:
CLAUDETTE GARIÉPY
Appellant
(Plaintiff)
- and -
THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA
Respondent
(Defendant)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario,
on Wednesday, May 20, 1998)
MARCEAU J.A.
[1] We are all of the view that this appeal, although brought against a decision which is not quite satisfactorily reasoned and presented by counsel with ability, cannot succeed.
[2] We do not believe that the facts of the case could give rise to a claim in contractual liability against the respondent, the Queen in right of Canada.
[3] The undated "Secondment agreement between Transport Canada and Consumer and Corporate Affairs" " which, at the end of 1983 or January 1984, provided that the appellant, whose two-year appointment at the Metric Commission was coming to an end, would from then on be, for two years, attached to the Ministry of Transport for her assignments and remuneration " could not create, in favour of the appellant, contractual rights of the nature of those attached to the indeterminate member of the public service, enforceable against the Queen. An employer-employee relationship between the Queen and an individual may not exist outside the parameters precisely established by the legislation. The agreement could have been invoked to base a claim for remuneration for work performed within the terms of the secondment, had difficulties arisen in this respect. It can no doubt be seen as expressing the intention to renew the temporary employment for two more years. But it did not and could not make the appellant an actual or eventual indeterminate employee of the respondent and it did not and could not have the effect of imposing on the respondent any contractual obligation pertaining to an actual or eventual permanent employer-employee relationship.
[4] Even if we could consider the agreement as being outside the purview of the statutory regime pertaining to employment in the public service and not in conflict with any statutory provision, and therefore valid in itself, the obligation created by it and said to have been breached would have to be taken as set out, that is to say an obligation by Transport Canada and the Public Service Commission "to work toward finding a suitable indeterminate assignment." We are of the view that this obligation was clearly satisfied by the serious efforts made in order to give effect to it.
[5] Nor do we believe that the facts of the case could give rise to a claim in tort or in delictual liability against the respondent through the provisions of the Crown Liability Act (R.S. 1985, c. C-50). We simply do not see which general duty of conduct was breached or which act of negligence was committed. Even if it can be said that the appellant, with her experience and ability, had the qualifications to permanently occupy a position in the public service, it does not follow that the agents involved were negligent or indifferent to the point of constituting a delict in their efforts to give effect to what may be seen as "expectations" the appellant could have been given by the secondment agreement, and even less so that the respondent would somehow have to answer for their actions. Counsel, in that respect, advanced the proposition that there was general bad faith on the part of those involved in the efforts made to give effect to the agreement, in that some of the reasons why those efforts were unsuccessful were improper and had not been disclosed to the appellant. To that end, counsel referred to the testimony of a former member of the Public Service Commission who revealed that some deputy ministers had admitted, confidentially, that their lack of interest in the services of the appellant was due to the perception that they had of her political affiliation, a fact that the member could not recall having discussed with the appellant. We simply cannot accept the proposition that a finding of bad faith can be drawn from such evidence, be it on the part of the deputy ministers in question for whom it was not improper to rely on their perceptions or the Commission member who was not duty bound to reveal these confidential exchanges.
[6] The appeal, for these reasons, will be dismissed with costs.
"Louis Marceau"
J.A.
Date: 19980520
Docket: A-174-96
(T-1107-91)
CORAM: MARCEAU J.A.
DENAULT J.A.
DESJARDINS J.A.
BETWEEN:
CLAUDETTE GARIÉPY
Appellant
(Plaintiff)
- and -
THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA
Respondent
(Defendant)
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on Wednesday, May 20, 1998.
Judgment rendered from the Bench on Wednesday, May 20, 1998.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: MARCEAU J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date: 19980520
Docket: A-174-96
(T-1107-91)
BETWEEN:
CLAUDETTE GARIÉPY
Appellant
(Plaintiff)
- and -
THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA
Respondent
(Defendant)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT
Email this Content