Docket: A-430-15
Citation: 2016 FCA 54
[ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
|
CORAM:
|
CHIEF JUSTICE NOËL
SCOTT J.A.
DE MONTIGNY J.A.
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
JENNIFER
POULIOT
|
|
appellant
|
|
and
|
|
DEPUTY HEAD
(Military Grievances External Review Committee
[formerly Canadian Forces Grievance Board])
|
|
respondent
|
Hearing
held at Ottawa, Ontario, on February 16, 2016.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on February 18, 2016.
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT:
|
SCOTT
J.A.
|
|
CONCURRING:
|
CHIEF
JUSTICE NOËL
DE
MONTIGNY J.A.
|
Docket: A-430-15
Citation: 2016 FCA 54
|
CORAM:
|
CHIEF JUSTICE NOËL
SCOTT J.A.
DE MONTIGNY J.A.
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
JENNIFER
POULIOT
|
|
appellant
|
|
and
|
|
DEPUTY HEAD
(Military Grievances External Review Committee
[formerly Canadian Forces Grievance Board])
|
|
respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SCOTT J.A.
[1]
In a decision rendered on October 31, 2014, an
adjudicator from the Public Service Labour Relations Board (PSLRB) dismissed
the grievances filed under paragraph 209(1)b) of the Public Service
Labour Relations Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, s. 2 (the Act) by Jennifer Pouliot
(the appellant) concerning decisions made by her employer, the Military
Grievances External Review Committee (the Committee) resulting in her
suspension and subsequent termination. The adjudicator's decision is reported
as 2014 PSLRB 94.
[2]
The appellant filed an application for judicial
review of this decision before the Court. She submits that the adjudicator
committed multiple errors in assessing the facts warranting our attention.
[3]
Based on the doctrine of this Court, the
standard of review applicable to a decision of a PSLRB adjudicator concerning a
grievance filed following suspension or termination is the standard of
reasonableness (Payne v. Bank of Montréal, 2013 FCA 33, 2013 FCJ no.
123; King v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 FCA 131, 2013 FCJ no.
551).
[4]
This Court may intervene only to the extent that
the adjudicator's decision is contrary to clearly established principles of
transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process and of
whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes
which are defensible in respect of the facts and law (Dunsmuir v. New
Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, paragraph 47).
[5]
I am not convinced that the adjudicator's
decision in this matter is unreasonable. Contrary to the appellant's
submissions, I conclude that the adjudicator did not commit any errors in her
assessment of the facts presented and arguments made to her. In my view, the
adjudicator's conclusion that the appellant's conduct broke the relationship of
trust with her employer, due to her lack of transparency, is justified in view
of the evidence of record.
[6]
I do not see any errors in the adjudicator's
determination that the appellant's use of the Committee's DWAN account for her reserve
work creates confusion as to the Committee's real independence (paragraph 215
of adjudicator's decision). The same applies to the appellant's work hours for
the reserve during time periods when she should have been performing Committee
work. Lastly, the conclusion that the appellant never submitted an
accommodation request does not appear unreasonable.
[7]
Having reviewed the entire record, I conclude
that the adjudicator's decision falls within the range of possible outcomes in
the present matter (see Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v.
Newfoundland and Labrador Treasury Board, 2011 SCC 62, [2011] 3 S.C.R.
708). In this context, it is not for this Court to substitute its own decision
or to make its own evaluation of the evidence.
[8]
Consequently, I would propose that the
application for judicial review be dismissed with costs.
"A.F. Scott"
"I Agree.
Marc Noël C.J."
"I Agree.
Yves de
Montigny J.A."
Email this Content