Date:
20120810
Docket:
T-1070-11
Citation:
2012 FC 979
[UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED
TRANSLATION]
Ottawa, Ontario,
August 10, 2012
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice de Montigny
BETWEEN:
|
|
CHRISTIANE ALLARD,
MARIE-ANDRÉ FRÉDETTE, HÉLÈNE GAGNON, EL MEHDI HADDOU, ALAIN LAJOIE, SONYA
LAURENDEAU, JULIE NAGEL, DANIEL PERRON, FRANCE PROVOST, MARIE-CLAUDE SIMARD,
HÉLÈNE SOUCY AND GENEVIÈVE TOUPIN
|
|
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
|
CANADIAN FOOD
INSPECTION
AGENCY
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review under section 18.1 of the Federal
Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7, of a decision dated June 2, 2011, by
Omer Boudreau, Vice President of Human Resources (the Vice President) of the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (the Agency), dismissing the applicants’
classification grievances and also adopting the recommendation of a
Classification Grievance Committee (the Committee).
[2]
For
the following reasons, the Court came to the conclusion that the Vice President’s
decision must be set aside, insofar as the Classification Grievance Process
was not followed by the Committee.
1. Facts
[3]
The
applicants hold the position of Area Program Specialist, Veterinary Medicine,
in the Agency’s Quebec area. In accordance with the Agency’s Classification
Grievance Process, the applicants filed grievances disputing the
classification of their position at the VM-03 group and level. The applicants do
not dispute their assignment to the occupational group, but request that their
position be given a higher classification.
[4]
The
grievances were filed on behalf of the applicants by the Professional Institute
of the Public Service of Canada (the Institute), which is the bargaining agent
certified by the Public Service Staff Relations Board for Agency employees that
are part of the applicants’ bargaining unit. The Institute and the Agency are
linked by a collective agreement that had the expiration date of
November 30, 2011.
[5]
The
Agency is a separate agency within the public service as defined by section 11
of the Financial Administration Act, RSC 1985, c F-11. As a separate
employer, the Agency is authorized to set the conditions of employment for
employees and to assign duties to them. Under sections 7 and 13 of this
Act, the President of the Agency has, and may delegate, the authority to
appoint employees of the Agency and to make decisions relating to organization
and classification.
[6]
The
Agency adopted the Organization and Classification Policy (Classification
Policy), which is used as a framework for managing and monitoring the Agency’s
organizational design and classification activities. Classification decisions,
including those based on classification grievances, are made in accordance with
this policy and the corresponding directives, guidelines and principles of
organizational design, work descriptions and definitions of occupational groups
and classification standards approved by the Agency. The classification
standard used to evaluate the veterinary medicine group positions provides that
the assessment of positions and the determination of their level of
classification are based on the following five factors: nature of the work,
complexity of the work, professional responsibility, administrative responsibilities
and impact of recommendations and activities.
[7]
Unlike
content grievances on an employee’s work description, which involve the
interpretation of the collective agreement, classification grievances are
excluded from it and the applicable process is instead governed by the Agency’s
Classification Grievance Process. Under this Process, an employee
must file a classification grievance in writing with his or her immediate
supervisor within the Agency. Each grievance is reviewed on its merits and a recommendation
on the position’s classification is made by a Classification Grievance
Committee (the Committee) to the Vice President of the Agency through the
Manager, Classification and Organization Design. The Vice President, as the
President’s representative, reviews the Committee’s report and may either
confirm the Committee’s recommendations, render a decision in cases of minority
and majority reports or render a separate decision (Part VIII of the Process,
Exhibit “B” of the affidavit of Allison Tomka, Applicants’ Record, Vol 1,
p 88).
[8]
On
or around May 10, 2010, the applicants were advised that the
classification of their positions, including the description agreed upon in
March 2009, was reviewed and confirmed by the Agency at the VM-03 group
and level on June 26, 2001. It was following this decision, in June 2010,
that the applicants filed their classification grievances.
[9]
On
February 15, 2011, the Committee met to allow the applicants’ union
representative to submit her arguments for the classification of the position
at a higher level (level 4).
[10]
Following
the union representative’s submission, the Committee decided that one of its
members could not continue to be a member of the Committee because she had been
involved in the work description content grievance for the position that was
part of the classification grievances. Therefore, she was replaced by another
member.
[11]
On
March 29, 2011, the Committee met again to obtain additional information
from the applicants. The Committee wanted details on seven (7) key activities
in the work description for the applicants’ positions so as to compare them to
those in the work descriptions for the benchmark positions and the relativity
positions submitted by the union representative. The Committee also contacted
the applicants’ supervisors for details on these seven key activities.
[12]
The
information received from the applicants and supervisors on certain key
activities of the generic work description were ambiguous. The Committee needed
to obtain more details to help it better understand the nature of the work and
of the activities carried out by the applicants. Thus, the Committee met again
to ask the applicants’ managers the same questions that the applicants and
their supervisors had been asked.
[13]
After
receiving the information from the supervisors and managers, the Committee
asked the union representative if the applicants had additional submissions to
make. The union representative told the Committee that she would make no more
submissions on the issue of work description content, specifically because this
description was the result of an agreement in the context of a content
grievance.
[14]
On
or around June 8, 2011, the Committee sent the applicants a copy of its
report dated May 3, 2011, and adopted by the Vice President on
June 2, 2011. The Committee recommended that the positions in question be
classified at the VM-03 group and level. The applicants subsequently received a
letter from the Vice President advising them that he was approving the
Committee’s recommendation and that his decision was final and binding, taking
effect on June 26, 2001. Therefore, the applicants’ grievances were
dismissed.
2. Impugned Decision
[15]
It
is worth reproducing the Committee’s findings with respect to the assessment of
the two factors that the applicants are disputing: the nature of the work
(assessed at level 3) and the complexity of the work (also assessed at
level 3). As previously stated, the applicants do not dispute the
allocation to the VM (veterinary medicine) professional group, or the
assessment of the three other factors used to classify a position from this
group: professional responsibility (assessed at level 4), administrative responsibilities
(assessed at level 2) and impact of recommendations and activities (assessed
at level 4).
[16]
Regarding
the “Nature of the Work” factor, the Committee wrote as follows:
[Translation]
The positions in question must develop, clarify and
resolve issues of the interpretation of the design and delivery of the Agency’s
regulatory veterinary medicine programs. They must participate in teams of
specialists and write program documents, including directives and changes made
to manuals. They are also responsible for monitoring program delivery and
assessing the effectiveness of zoosanitary and food safety programs and acting
as head of the specialization in writing, verifying and recommending duties to
be incorporated into the compliance verification system. They must co-ordinate
and manage investigations of situations requiring expertise in the specialization
and manage or participate in the development, maintenance and assessment of
emergency measures.
The nature of the work of the positions in question
usually relates to a single specialization but requires the co-operation of
colleagues in other specializations; further, the activities differ from each
other, including writing documents relating to the programs, making
recommendations when reviewing plans and specifications submitted by the
industry, monitoring program delivery, assessing and reviewing developments that
arise in the field, participating as a specialist in international audits and
managing emergency measures. The nature of the work is higher than the
description of degree 2 but is lower than that of degree 4. The nature
of the work of the positions in question is higher than that of benchmark
position 3, Chief Veterinary Officer, Poultry Plant, because the work of
the benchmark position focuses on one specialization in a very specific
environment. The nature of the work of the positions in question is lower than
that of benchmark position 7, Regional Veterinarian, Animal Health,
Moncton, New
Brunswick, because
the benchmark position is responsible for organizing and managing the work of the
animal health program in the region through 10 district offices. The nature
of the work of the positions in question compares well with that of benchmark
position 6, Chief Veterinary Officer, more complex meat plant (Kitchener),
given that the positions in question and the benchmark position works in an
area of specialisation and must provide consultation to various stakeholders.
The Committee does not agree with the union’s choice
of benchmark position 9, Chief, Control Programs, Animal Health Division,
as a comparator because the benchmark position is a position responsible for
planning, organizing and evaluating national departmental programs, whereas the
positions in question are responsible for ensuring the regional implementation
of a program. Further, the Committee does not share the view that the positions
in question compare with the Agency’s position number 12296, National
Specialist, Meat Processing Program, since position 12296 has a national
leadership role in improving the security and safety of Canadian meat and
products from federally registered establishments.
[17]
As
for “complexity of the work”, the Committee made the following observations:
[Translation]
The positions in question must co-ordinate and
manage the development, approval and implementation of action plans to correct
situations that could compromise the protection of the animal resource base or threaten
the safety of animal food products. The positions in question must provide
scientific and policy advice during animal health or food safety emergencies in
Canada or abroad. The responsibilities of the positions in question include the
need to identify and analyze problem situations where program development does
not make it possible to reach the intended objectives. In addition, the
positions in question must identify emerging concerns and risks with a view to
improving the Agency’s programs.
The complexity of the work of the positions in
question requires the use of data obtained by colleagues in the field or by
people in the private sector or through personal observation and laboratory
tests by the Agency, from other government agencies or from the private sector
to ensure that the Agency’s programs are applied uniformly throughout the
region. The complexity of the work of the positions in question is higher than the description of degree 2
but it is lower than that of degree 4. The complexity of the work of the
positions in question is
higher than
that of benchmark position 3, Chief Veterinary Officer, Poultry Plant,
given that the benchmark position acts on the data obtained by direct
observation and that the decisions are made according to fairly simple tests
with very few variables. The complexity of the work of the positions in
question is lower than that of benchmark position 7, Regional
Veterinarian, Animal Health, Moncton, New Brunswick, because the benchmark
position must make decisions on the planning, organization and administration
of the animal health in the region through 10 district offices, involving
approximately 50 employees. The complexity of the work of the positions in
question compares well with benchmark position 5, Veterinary, Infectious
Diseases, since the work of the benchmark position and the positions in
question must be done using usual methods, working with people in the field.
The Committee does not agree with the union
regarding the choice of benchmark position 9, Chief, Control Programs,
Animal Health Division, given that the benchmark position must deal with a
myriad of issues related to the implementation of the program across the country.
In addition, the Committee does not share the view that the positions in
question compare with position number 12296 of the Agency, National
Specialist, Meat Processing Program, and with position number 25576,
Senior Staff Veterinarian, Animal Products, Animal Health, since both positions
deal with the development and implementation of programs nationally and are the
positions that will be consulted by the positions in question for advice in
implementing the Agency’s programs.
3. Issues
[18]
This
application for judicial review raises the following two issues:
a) What
standard of review is applicable to the decision made by the Vice President of
the Agency?
b) Did
the Committee breach its duty of procedural fairness by modifying the content
of a work description?
4. Analysis
a) What
standard of review is applicable to the decision made by the Vice President of
the Agency?
[19]
First,
it is appropriate to specify that the Committee’s report and the Vice President’s
decision must be analyzed as a whole for the purposes of this application for
judicial review. Although the Vice President is the only one authorized to make
a decision in a classification grievance, it is clear that he made this
decision relying on the Committee’s report. When he endorsed the Committee’s
recommendation, in particular, he implicitly adopted the reasons. Therefore,
the Vice President’s decision does not separate the Committee’s assessment of
the grievance and any error that it may have made will invalidate the Vice
President’s decision.
[20]
Both
parties agree on the standards of review applicable to the two issues in this
case. There is no doubt that an issue relating to a classification grievance is
a question of mixed fact and law that is within the expertise of the final
level decision-maker. That is the conclusion I came to in a similar case, after
a review of the existing case law in this matter and a contextual analysis, and
I do not see any reason to depart from it: Peck v Canada (Parks
Canada), 2009 FC 686, at paras 17-23, [2009] FCJ No 1707; see
also Spencer v Canada (Attorney General), 2010 FC 33, [2010] FCJ
No 29; Adamadis v Canada (Treasury Board), 2006 FC 243,
[2006] FCJ No 305; Utovac v Canada (Treasury Board), 2006 FC 643,
[2006] FCJ No 833; Beauchemin v Canada (Canadian Food Inspection
Agency), 2008 FC 186, [2008] FCJ No 238. Accordingly, this Court must
show deference and will not intervene unless it can be demonstrated that the Vice
President’s decision does not fall within “the range of possible, acceptable
outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and the law” Dunsmuir
v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 at para 47, [2008] FCJ No 9.
[21]
As
to issues of procedural fairness, they are not part of an analysis based on a
standard of review. When such an issue is raised, the Court must instead
determine whether the process followed by the administrative body whose
decision is challenged by this application for judicial review is in accordance
with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness: Canada (Attorney
General) v Sketchley, 2005 FCA 404, [2005] FCJ No 2056. In
principle, the breach of a principle of procedural fairness will cause the
impugned decision to be set aside. This Court also confirmed in Grauer v
Canada (Attorney General), 2009 FC 242, [2009] FCJ No 317, that
procedural fairness issues in the context of classification grievances are
subject to the standard of correctness.
b) Did
the Committee breach its duty of procedural fairness by modifying the content
of a work description?
[22]
Counsel
for the applicants argued that the Committee had used the testimony of the applicants’
supervisors and managers to modify certain aspects of the applicants’ work
description, by minimizing or even totally deleting some of the duties listed
in the work description. The Committee is also criticized for accepting the
claim of the supervisors and managers that several of the duties within the applicants’
key activities are performed at the regional or provincial levels, rather than
at the national level. That is apparently what led the Committee to reject
several benchmark positions and comparator positions proposed by the Institute,
on the ground that these positions involved work at the national level.
[23]
There
is no doubt that a classification grievance cannot include disagreement concerning
the work description content and that a work description content grievance takes
precedence over a classification grievance. The Classification
Grievance Process could not be clearer in this respect:
2. A classification grievance does not include
disagreement concerning the work description content or the effective date of
the classification decision. These matters are resolved through the labour
relations grievance procedure provided for in collective agreements.
3. A labour relations grievance relating to work
description content takes precedence over a classification grievance. A
decision on a work description content grievance for a position must be
rendered before a classification grievance on that position may proceed. If,
the work description is modified as a result of a job content grievance, a new
classification decision must be issued to which the employee may exercise the
right of a new classification grievance. Thus, the initial classification
grievance becomes obsolete.
[24]
That
being said, one must also keep in mind that the work description of the
applicants’ positions is generic. It describes the work assigned to some
similar or identical positions at the same occupational group and level. A
generic work description is not tailored to a specific position. As the Federal
Court of Appeal stated in Currie v Canada (Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency) 2006 FCA 194, [2006] FCJ No 784 “[i]t is not uncommon for employees
who have a common Work Description to have different duties and responsibilities.
So long as those different duties and responsibilities all fall within the
general language of their common Work Description, all is well...” (at
para 1).
[25]
It
is true that, in this case, as pointed out by counsel for the applicants, the
work description for “Area Program Specialist, Regulatory Veterinary Medicine”
is not formally identified as a generic description. But the fact is that this
description is applicable to all positions occupied by the applicants in this
case. Thus, it is possible that activities contained in a generic work
description are not carried out fully or to the same extent in a given
position. Moreover, the applicants admitted that they did not necessarily perform
all the duties that appear in their work description, even if they may have the
required skills needed to perform all the functions listed in this description.
[26]
The
work description lists twenty-one (21) main roles, which actually
represent the applicants’ key activities. Within the classification grievance,
the Committee required parts of the additional information for seven (7)
of the key activities, i.e. 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 17 and 20. It goes without saying
that the Committee, in reviewing a classification grievance, could not modify
the work description or refuse to consider the duties and activities it
contains. The applicants and the Agency agreed on the description following a
content grievance under the collective agreement. Further, the respondent
admitted that the Committee would have breached the principles natural justice
if it had modified the work description, to the extent of depriving the
applicants of being heard by an impartial arbitrator whose decision would have
been subject to judicial review.
[27]
Therefore,
the entire issue is whether the Committee modified the work description or
whether it had considered the information sent by the applicants and their
supervisors and managers to make sure it clearly understood the nature of the
applicants’ duties so as to determine how the duties and activities listed in
their work description are carried out.
[28]
A
careful reading of the activities described in the work description and the
Committee’s summary of the comments made by the supervisors and managers reveals
that they did not merely modify the applicants’ responsibilities to include the
context in which these responsibilities are carried out, but that they have, in
many respects, called into question the very nature of the activities listed in
the work description. A few examples will be sufficient to illustrate this
observation.
[29]
The
first activity is “[d]evelops and maintains Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(CFIA) regulations, policies, programs, procedures and standards concerning
zoosanitary requirements and food safety”. The applicants stated that they
performed these duties and they provided examples to this effect, and their
supervisors essentially confirmed their statements. However, the managers
stated that this key activity [Translation]
“is the responsibility of the positions at headquarters” and minimized the
responsibility of the applicants, stating that the applicants are [Translation] “consulted” in developing
policies and [Translation] “participate”
in writing some documents. Finally, the applicants had told the Committee that
they develop policies for the Quebec region in consultation with colleagues in
other parts of Canada, whereas the managers stated that they were responsible
for [Translation] “keep up to date”
documents for the Quebec region.
[30]
Even
more significant is the gap between activities 4 and 17 as described in
the Work Description and the comments made by the supervisors and managers
before the Committee. Activities 4 and 17 of the Work Description read as
follows:
4. Consults with provincial governments and
Area-based industry groups. Represents the CFIA on and leads international,
national and regional committees and working groups participating in bilateral
and multilateral consultations and negotiations relating to Canadian policies
and programs concerning zoosanitary requirements and food safety.
17. Negotiates the requirements applicable to import
and export certification as well as the requirements of programs concerning
animals, animal products, animal by-products and other related products. Provides
interpretation and advice regarding zoosanitary and food safety requirements
applicable to imports/exports.
.
[31]
With
respect to activity 4, the supervisors denied that the applicants lead
international groups, while the managers stated that the applicants [Translation] “are not at all involved at
the international level and do not participate in bilateral and multilateral
consultations relating to Canadian policies and programs concerning zoosanitary
requirements and food safety”. With respect to activity 17, the
supervisors testified before the Committee that the applicants do not conduct
negotiations as provided in this key activity because this kind of work is done
in “Ottawa”, while the managers categorically stated that the applicants [Translation] “do not have
responsibilities relating to the first part of this key activity and this
responsibility belongs at the national level”.
[32]
Activity 6
concerns developing and participating in the development of opinions,
interpretations, recommendations and science-related talks concerning zoosanitary
requirements and food safety programs, and presenting them to the Agency’s
senior management, Network and Operations personnel and other government and
non-government organizations. On this point, the supervisors and managers
alleged that the applicants performed this type of work [Translation] “in Quebec only”.
[33]
Less
of a disparity was noted between the work description and the comments from
management about activities 7 and 10. However, activity 20 also
reveals major disparities between the text of the work description and the
managers’ perception of it. This activity consists in responding to questions
and in acting as national and regional spokesperson with respect to zoosanitary
and food safety policies and programs, in response to questions from the
Agency’s personnel, representatives of national and foreign governments and the
industry, the general public and the media. While the applicants stated that
they regularly act as national spokesperson for the Agency, particularly in
French, the supervisors and managers insisted that the applicants speak for the
Agency [Translation] “mostly in
Quebec, but also at the national level, especially because of the language”.
[34]
The
above review shows that the Committee did not merely assess the frequency or degree
to which the duties in work description were actually performed, but that it
went further by modifying the work description itself. The applicants did admit
that they do not perform all the duties in the work description on a regular
basis. But the work description, as agreed upon by the Agency as a result of a
grievance, was nonetheless a comparison tool to be used for classification
purposes. The work description, it should be remembered, shows the
qualifications required of an employee to fill a given position, even if an
employee may not fulfil all of the functions and responsibilities of a work
description that applies to several employees.
[35]
The
very definition of the work description stated in the Agency’s Organization
and Classification Policy provides that it is “a document approved by the
respective manager that describes the work requirements of a position or a job.
A work description contains all the information needed to evaluate the work
using the appropriate classification standard”. (Affidavit of Chantal Seeton,
Exhibit “A”, Respondent’s Record, p 29). In the same vein, the Federal Court of
Appeal, in Eksal v Canada (Attorney General), 2006 FCA 50, at
para 10, [2006] FCJ No 164, wrote as follows:
[10] … The fact that the incumbents may be called
upon to fulfil only some of those requirements does not modify the job
description or establish that the requirements which it embodies are no longer
in effect. Indeed, it will be a rare case where an employee is called upon to
fulfil all the requirements embodied in a job description all of the time. It
follows that ... the only useful comparison which can be made is to the job
description.
[36]
In
this regard, it is significant to note that the Committee seems to have had
doubts about its mandate and its jurisdiction to determine the grievance, given
the disagreement between the parties on the key element underlying the
classification of a position. This is what the Committee wrote on this topic in
its report:
[Translation]
The Committee deliberated a long time on whether it
has jurisdiction to further review the grievances given that the information
obtained from the supervisors and managers partly invalidates the work
description content; the Committee also noted that some information obtained from
the plaintiffs themselves calls into question some aspects of the key
activities, as described …
(Applicants’ Record, Vol. 1,
p 16).
[37]
Taking
into account this statement, the Committee could not review the classification
grievance and should have made sure that the parties agreed on the work
description before going any further. If the managers did not agree with the
work description or believed that the applications did not really fall within
the generic work description that was applied to them, it fell on them to file
a content grievance that would have been heard by an impartial arbitrator
subject to the judicial review of this Court. It is also significant to note,
on this point, that the manager who agreed with the work description did not
actually defend it and merely told the Committee that [Translation] “she had simply signed a letter to the
plaintiffs, written by human resources people in response to the labour
relations grievance on the work description content, but that she had not
necessarily read the content of the work description” (Applicants’ Record, Vol 1,
p 14). In any event, the Committee could not ignore this fundamental
disagreement between management and the applicants on the work description and
review the classification grievance, presuming that the information obtained
would help it to have a balanced view. The disagreement was not about mere
terms but on essential aspects of the work description. In this context, the
Committee could not determine the classification grievance as stated in section 2
of the Classification Grievance Process quoted above. Also see Beauchemin
v Canada (Canadian Food Inspection Agency), 2008 FC 186, [2008] FCJ
No 238, at para 40.
[38]
Having
regard to all of the foregoing, the Court is of the view that the Committee
exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying the content of the applicants’ work
description without giving them the opportunity of being heard by an
arbitrator. As opposed to a classification grievance, a grievance on an
employee’s work description content is one that involves the interpretation of
the collective agreement, here article E 1.01. Therefore, such a grievance
may be referred to arbitration under sections 208 and 209 of the Public
Service Labour Relations Act, SC 2003, c 22.
[39]
This
breach of the principles of natural justice alone would suffice to invalidate
the Committee’s decision. But there is more. Minimizing and even modifying
certain duties allocated to the applicants in their work description had a
determinative impact on the Committee’s classification of the applicants’
position. It is true, as the respondent pointed out, that the work description
is not the only element that it has to take into account in determining the
relative value of a position. It must also be compared to benchmark positions,
looked at in relation to the organisational context and must take into account
relativity positions. It remains the case that, as conceded by the Agency’s
Manager, Corporate Classification and Organization Design, the work description
is [Translation] “crucial” for the
classification of a position: Affidavit of Chantal Seeton, Respondent’s Record,
Tab 2, para 14.
[40]
Moreover,
a careful reading of the Committee’s reasons under the headings “Nature of the
Work”, “Complexity of the Work” and “Professional Responsibility” shows that
the Committee was clearly influenced by the comments of the supervisors and
managers, according to whom several of the applicants’ duties and key
activities are performed at the regional or provincial levels and not at the
international level. Not only did this perception cause the Committee to
implicitly rewrite the work description, but it was also one of the main
reasons that the Committee rejected the benchmark positions and the two
relativity positions proposed by the union representative. In doing so, the
Committee ignored the wording of the work description, which states in several
places the national and even international nature of the duties and
responsibilities described, relying instead on the testimony of the supervisors
and managers that the duties were performed regionally or provincially.
[41]
The
Court therefore finds that the Committee overstepped its jurisdiction and did
not respect the Classification Grievance Process by modifying the work description
covered by the classification grievance. The Committee usurped the role of a
grievance arbitrator and thus breached the principles of natural justice by not
respecting the process provided by the collective agreement and the Agency’s
own policies. When a classification committee identifies a fundamental
disagreement between the parties regarding the work description that it must
assess, as in this case, it must remove itself from the grievance until there
has been an agreement or, where applicable, an arbitral decision on the work description.
In not doing so, the Committee breached the applicants’ rights and rendered an
unreasonable decision. Therefore, the Vice President’s decision to dismiss the
classification grievances must be set aside.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that the application for judicial
review is allowed and that the Vice President’s decision dismissing the
applicants’ classification grievances be set aside, with costs to the
applicants.
“Yves
de Montigny”
Certified true
translation
Catherine Jones,
Translator
Email this Content