Date: 20080916
Citation: 2008 FCA
270
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
BETWEEN:
ANDRÉ JULIEN, CHRISTINE ALMEIDA, BARBARA ATTWATERS,
HILDEGARD
BARTER, JEFFREY BECK, BEVERLEY ANNE BLAIR,
KELLY
FRANCES CADDICK, DIANE CASSEL, JOAN CLAYTON,
KAREN
CSESZNEKI, MAUREEN CUMMINGS, GERALD CUNNINGHAM,
BRIGITTE
DAVIAU, MARGUERITE DEAN, LORRAINE DIAPER, RITA DREW, PEGGI DUGAS, ALBINA
FACCHIN, KAREN KRCEL, EVA KUHN, PANSY LAM, JACQUELINE MATCHETT, DEBBIE ANN
MCLEAN, DANUTA MAGIER,
LESLIE
MITCHELL, LAURA MUSCUTT, WAYNE PARRINDER, MICHAEL PAYEUR, BARBARA JEAN
RAWLINGS, JASMINE ROZELL, LORRIE SEXSMITH,
DAVID
THOMSON, PAUL TRUAISCH, CONSTANCE TRUAISCH,
CHRIS
WAKEFIELD, DEBORAH ZALITACH, NATHALIE ZANDBERGEN,
RON
BEAULIEU, MARY ARGYRACOPOULOU, DANIELLE ARSENAULT,
JOANNE
AUGER-BOUDREAU, LYNE BEDARD, LOUISELLE BERGERON,
PAULINE
BERNARD, CHRISTIANNE BERNIER, GERALD BIBEAULT,
CELINE
BIRON, MONIQUE BOITREAU, ANDRE BONNELLY, SYLVAIN BORDUAS, JOSEE BOUCHARD
LAVASSEUR, JOHANNE BOUCHER, LUC BOUDREAULT, MARTINE BOULANGER, MARTIN BOULARD,
CHRISTIANE BRIEN,
LYNE
BRISSON, MYCHEL BRODEUR, JOHANNE CARLOS, LOUISE CHIASSON, JOVETTE COTE,
HUGUETTE COULOMBE, SYLVIE COURNOYER,
JOCELYNE
DAIGLE, MAURICE DEMERS, CLAUDE DUFRESNE,
ROGER
FERGUSON, SUZANNE FRAPPIER, SYLVAIN GAUDETTE,
VALERIE
GINGRAS, JOHANNE GOBEIL, ISABELLE GODIN, MONIQUE GOSSELIN, CHANTAL HAMEL, DIANE
JACQUES, LORRAINE JOBIN, FRANCINE LACOSTE, YOLANDE LAFRENIERE, NICOLE LANDRY,
CAROLE LATOUCHE,
CAROLLE
LAVOIE, MARC ANDRE LAVOIE, MARCEL LAVOIE,
HELENE
LEMIEUX, LOUISE LEMIEUX, LUCIE LEMIEUX, DENISE LEPAGE, DIANE LESIEUR, LARRY
LEWIS, KATHLEEN LOWDE, LUCETTE MARCOUILLER, PIERRE MARCOUX, DANIELLE MATTE,
LISE MENARD, YOLANDE MINCHILLO, MAURICE MORIN, DORIS MORISSETTE, MARIE MYETTE,
LOUISE PHILIPPON, SOPHIE PESANT, LIETTE QUENNEVILLE, DORIS RANCOURT, SYLVIE
RANGER, CLAIRE ROY, JEAN-CLAUDE ROAY, LUC ROULEAU, ANDREE SANTERRE, GISELE
ARSENAULT, NORMA BRINE, PAULINE GIROUARD, ANDRE LANDRY, JANICE
LEBLANC-ROBICHAUD, STELLA LEBLANC, MURIELLE POWERS, CLAUDETTE WARD, CHARLENE
WOODWORTH, ARLENE BEST,
JOHN
CAMPBELL, BARBARA COCHRANE, MARGARET DELANEY,
CATHERINE
HÉBERT, WILLIAM KEIRSTEAD, MICHÈLE LEAMON,
MARJORIE
POWER, EMILY REHBERG, CLAIRE STEWART, PAULINE WALKER, PATRICIA BRYANT, SANDRA
DODD, PATRICK KIRBY, INGRID GRACE,
JANET
LACEY, SHARON LEARNING, DAN NOFTALL, GARY STONE,
MARLENE
WOODLAND
Appellants
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
CANADA REVENUE AGENCY
Respondents
Hearing held at Ottawa,
Ontario, on September 16, 2008.
Judgment
delivered from the bench at Ottawa,
Ontario, on September 16, 2008.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: TRUDEL
J.A.
Date:
20080916
Citation: 2008 FCA 270
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU
J.A.
NOËL
J.A.
TRUDEL
J.A.
BETWEEN:
ANDRÉ
JULIEN, CHRISTINE ALMEIDA, BARBARA ATTWATERS,
HILDEGARD
BARTER, JEFFREY BECK, BEVERLEY ANNE BLAIR,
KELLY
FRANCES CADDICK, DIANE CASSEL, JOAN CLAYTON,
KAREN
CSESZNEKI, MAUREEN CUMMINGS, GERALD CUNNINGHAM,
BRIGITTE
DAVIAU, MARGUERITE DEAN, LORRAINE DIAPER, RITA DREW, PEGGI DUGAS, ALBINA FACCHIN,
KAREN KRCEL, EVA KUHN, PANSY LAM, JACQUELINE MATCHETT, DEBBIE ANN MCLEAN,
DANUTA MAGIER,
LESLIE
MITCHELL, LAURA MUSCUTT, WAYNE PARRINDER, MICHAEL PAYEUR, BARBARA JEAN
RAWLINGS, JASMINE ROZELL, LORRIE SEXSMITH,
DAVID
THOMSON, PAUL TRUAISCH, CONSTANCE TRUAISCH,
CHRIS
WAKEFIELD, DEBORAH ZALITACH, NATHALIE ZANDBERGEN,
RON
BEAULIEU, MARY ARGYRACOPOULOU, DANIELLE ARSENAULT,
JOANNE
AUGER-BOUDREAU, LYNE BEDARD, LOUISELLE BERGERON,
PAULINE
BERNARD, CHRISTIANNE BERNIER, GERALD BIBEAULT,
CELINE
BIRON, MONIQUE BOITREAU, ANDRE BONNELLY, SYLVAIN BORDUAS, JOSEE BOUCHARD
LAVASSEUR, JOHANNE BOUCHER, LUC BOUDREAULT, MARTINE BOULANGER, MARTIN BOULARD,
CHRISTIANE BRIEN,
LYNE
BRISSON, MYCHEL BRODEUR, JOHANNE CARLOS, LOUISE CHIASSON, JOVETTE COTE,
HUGUETTE COULOMBE, SYLVIE COURNOYER,
JOCELYNE
DAIGLE, MAURICE DEMERS, CLAUDE DUFRESNE,
ROGER
FERGUSON, SUZANNE FRAPPIER, SYLVAIN GAUDETTE,
VALERIE
GINGRAS, JOHANNE GOBEIL, ISABELLE GODIN, MONIQUE GOSSELIN, CHANTAL HAMEL, DIANE
JACQUES, LORRAINE JOBIN, FRANCINE LACOSTE, YOLANDE LAFRENIERE, NICOLE LANDRY,
CAROLE LATOUCHE,
CAROLLE
LAVOIE, MARC ANDRE LAVOIE, MARCEL LAVOIE,
HELENE
LEMIEUX, LOUISE LEMIEUX, LUCIE LEMIEUX, DENISE LEPAGE, DIANE LESIEUR, LARRY
LEWIS, KATHLEEN LOWDE, LUCETTE MARCOUILLER, PIERRE MARCOUX, DANIELLE MATTE,
LISE MENARD, YOLANDE MINCHILLO, MAURICE MORIN, DORIS MORISSETTE, MARIE MYETTE,
LOUISE PHILIPPON, SOPHIE PESANT, LIETTE QUENNEVILLE, DORIS RANCOURT, SYLVIE
RANGER, CLAIRE ROY, JEAN-CLAUDE ROAY, LUC ROULEAU, ANDREE SANTERRE, GISELE
ARSENAULT, NORMA BRINE, PAULINE GIROUARD, ANDRE LANDRY, JANICE
LEBLANC-ROBICHAUD, STELLA LEBLANC, MURIELLE POWERS, CLAUDETTE WARD, CHARLENE
WOODWORTH, ARLENE BEST,
JOHN
CAMPBELL, BARBARA COCHRANE, MARGARET DELANEY,
CATHERINE
HÉBERT, WILLIAM KEIRSTEAD, MICHÈLE LEAMON,
MARJORIE
POWER, EMILY REHBERG, CLAIRE STEWART, PAULINE WALKER, PATRICIA BRYANT, SANDRA
DODD, PATRICK KIRBY, INGRID GRACE,
JANET
LACEY, SHARON LEARNING, DAN NOFTALL, GARY STONE,
MARLENE
WOODLAND
Appellants
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
CANADA REVENUE AGENCY
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 16,
2008)
TRUDEL J.A.
[1]
This
appeal relates to a Federal Court ruling (2008 FC 115) by which
Justice Shore dismissed the appellants’ application for judicial review of a
decision rendered by the Assistant Commissioner responsible for classification
grievances in the Canada Revenue Agency. Basing her conclusions on the report
of the Classification Grievance Committee (the Committee), the Assistant Commissioner
refused the reclassification of the position of collection officer from level
PM-01 to PM-02.
[2]
The
appellants are challenging the procedural fairness of that decision and submit
that the Committee did not grant them a right of reply in respect of [translation] “new and contradictory
information” filed by the employer, specifically as regards the management of
complex cases (Appellants’ Memorandum of Fact and Law, paragraphs 22 and
following) and that this new information carried too much weight in the
recommendation and decision that followed.
[3]
The
appellants believe, inter alia, that the Committee was influenced by
certain responses given by the employer regarding the management of complex
cases—responses that reflected a virtual structure that was not yet in place
and did not provide the appellants with such supervision as could be inferred.
[4]
More precisely, the debate focuses on what
appears to be a misunderstanding regarding the grounds the Committee used to
justify its recommendation.
[5]
According to the appellants, the Committee
concluded that the appellants were not responsible for complex collection cases
and that such cases were automatically transferred.
[6]
However, a careful review of the Committee’s
report reveals rather that the Committee was of the opinion that advice was
available to collection officers for complex cases and that such cases could be
submitted to senior employees to obtain advice on how to proceed.
[7]
The concept of procedural fairness is eminently
variable and its content is to be decided in the specific context of each case
(Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, paragraph 79; see
also Knight v. Indian Head School Division No. 19, [1990]
1 S.C.R. 653, page 682; Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, paragraph 21; Moreau-Bérubé
v. New Brunswick (Judicial Council), 2002 SCC 11,
paragraphs 74-75).
[8]
In the case at bar, the Committee’s power of
recommendation is circumscribed by the Organizational and Classification
Policy, (Appellants’ Book of Authorities, Tab 4) which applies to “all
organization and classification activities across the Agency,” and stipulates
at paragraph 2(b)(iv) that:
iv. The
committee will review all material presented by the grievor and/or the
representative, as well as clarifications provided by management responsible
for the work under question. The committee will review and analyze all
information presented in an unbiased and gender-neutral way. The committee's
final deliberations and decision occur “in camera”. If significant new
information is presented to the committee by management, the grievor and/or the
representative will be provided with the information and have 10 working days
to respond. The response received from the grievor and/or the representative, will
be presented to the grievance committee for consideration.
[9]
In the
specific context of this case, the appellants failed to persuade us that the
Committee did not comply with this policy and therefore infringed upon the
appellants’ right to a fair hearing.
[10]
There is
no basis for this Court to intervene and reverse Justice Shore’s findings of
fact and law on this issue (paragraphs 47 and 48 of his reasons).
[11]
The appeal
will be dismissed with costs.
“Johanne
Trudel”
Certified true
translation
Sarah Burns
Email this Content