Date: 20030515
Docket: A-200-02
Citation: 2003 FCA 227
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
NOËL J.A.
NADON J.A.
BETWEEN:
CHARLOTTE RHÉAUME
Appellant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on May 6, 2003.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 15, 2003.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: NADON J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: DESJARDINS J.A.
NOËL J.A.
Date: 20030515
Docket: A-200-02
Citation: 2003 FCA 227
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
NOËL J.A.
NADON J.A.
BETWEEN:
CHARLOTTE RHÉAUME
Appellant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
NADON J.A.:
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
[1] This is an appeal from a decision dated March 25, 2002, by Mr. Justice Pelletier of the Trial Division (as he then was). On that date, Pelletier J. upheld the order made on February 25, 2002, by Prothonotary Richard Morneau striking out the appellant's application for judicial review.
[2] A brief summary of the facts will suffice to dispose of this appeal. The appellant, an employee of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA), has been working since August 2, 1993, at the Technical Interpretation Service of GST/HST in Montréal.
[3] The appellant forwarded a document dated October 30, 2001, to the Public Service Commission (the Commission) under section 21 of the Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-33 as amended (PSEA), in which she appealed all appointments to the position of
AU-02 in the Technical Interpretation Service throughout Canada after January 1, 1999. The appellant set out the following grounds in that document:
(a) less likelihood of promotion;
(b) unfair process;
(c) competition held in violation of her rights;
(d) area of selection infringed the Charter of Rights;
(e) breach of the PSEA and its applicable Regulations;
(f) breach of the merit principle;
(g) abuse of power and discrimination by the employer.
[4] By letter dated November 19, 2001, Françoise Huneault, Deputy Registrar of the Recourse and Review Branch of the Commission, informed the appellant that no further action would be taken on her appeal because it failed to identify any specific appointment and was out of time; furthermore, the Commission had no jurisdiction to hear it, since the CCRA was not subject to the PSEA and, as a result, the CCRA was not under the jurisdiction of the Commission.
[5] By letter dated December 3, 2001, the appellant asked the Commission to reconsider its decision and to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear her appeal.
[6] On December 19, 2001, to prevent the limitation period from expiring, the appellant filed an application for judicial review of Ms. Huneault's decision of November 19, 2001, in this Court. This was done before the Commission replied to her letter of December 3, 2001.
[7] By letter dated January 11, 2002, the Commission informed the appellant that an appeal board would be set up to decide whether the Commission had jurisdiction to hear her appeal and that a conference call would be held on January 31, 2002, to deal with this issue.
[8] On February 6, 2002, Gaston Carbonneau, Chairperson of the Appeal Board, dismissed the appellant's appeal on the same grounds stated by Ms. Huneault in her letter of November 19, 2001. That decision was not challenged by the appellant and is now final.
[9] On February 12, 2002, the respondent filed a motion to strike the appellant's application for judicial review and on February 25, 2002, the Prothonotary granted the motion on the ground that the application for judicial review was moot, in view of the creation of the appeal board and its decision of February 6, 2002.
[10] The appellant appealed the order of Prothonotary Morneau by motion filed on March 5, 2002. On March 25, 2002, Pelletier J. dismissed her appeal.
[11] Pelletier J. was of the view that the application for judicial review was moot because Ms. Huneault's letter of November 19, 2001, was not a decision of an appeal board of the Commission and because an appeal board had been created in January 2001.
[12] The appellant has been unable to persuade me that Pelletier J. erred in upholding the decision of Prothonotary Morneau. In light of the reasons stated by Pelletier J. in support of his order of March 25, 2002, the conclusion he arrived at seems to me beyond reproach. For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal with costs.
[13] In conclusion, I note that in paragraph 6 of his decision of February 25, 2002, Prothonotary Morneau clearly indicated to the appellant that the decision she should be challenging was the one made by the appeal board on February 6, 2002. Accordingly, it is
surprising that the appellant, who was still within the prescribed period to dispute that decision as of February 6, 2002, did not file an application for judicial review of that decision.
"M. Nadon"
J.A.
"I concur in the opinion.
Alice Desjardins J.A.."
"I concur.
Marc Noël J.A."
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan, LLB
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-200-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: CHARLOTTE RHÉAUME v. A.G.C.
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: May 7, 2003
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: NADON J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: DESJARDINS J.A.
NOËL J.A.
DATED: MAY 15, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Charlotte Rhéaume APPELLANT
Diane Pelletier FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Charlotte Rhéaume APPELLANT
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Date: 20030515
Docket: A-200-02
Ottawa, Ontario, May 15, 2003
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
NOËL J.A.
NADON J.A.
BETWEEN:
CHARLOTTE RHÉAUME
Appellant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
"Alice Desjardins"
J.A.
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan, LLB
Email this Content