Date: 20101026
Docket: T-610-10
Citation: 2010 FC 1058
Toronto, Ontario, October 26,
2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes
BETWEEN:
SAWSAN
SHARAF
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review of a decision of an adjudicator of the
Public Service Labour Relations Board (cited as 2010 PSLRB 34) dated February
26, 2010 in which it was determined that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to
hear a first grievance and that a schedule be set in respect of a second
grievance. Only the first grievance is at issue here. As stated to the
parties at the conclusion of the oral hearing of this application, the
application is dismissed with costs payable to the Respondent fixed at the sum
of $2,500.00.
[2]
The
decision that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to hear the first grievance
was fully supported in the reasons and summarized at paragraphs 88 to 90. In
order to have jurisdiction paragraph 209(1)(b) of the Public Service Labour
Relations Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, s. 2 requires that the grievance be
related to a disciplinary action resulting in termination, demotion, suspension
or financial penalty. The grievor’s (Applicant) position was that, subsequent
to being hired in 2003 in a supervisory managerial position she was relieved of
most of her duties, particularly those requiring the supervision of others
which, in effect, amounted to discipline, termination or demotion. The Respondent’s
position was that a number of grievances and complaints respecting the
Applicant’s conduct and attitude towards others had been received and, in order
to deal with a worsening condition in this area of the workplace,
administrative action had to be taken to keep the situation under control.
[3]
The
adjudicator’s reasons clearly indicate that he was aware of the pertinent
issues, relevant facts and applicable law. His decision whether reviewable on
a standard of correctness or reasonableness, was both correct and reasonable.
[4]
The
Applicant has been self-represented throughout these Court proceedings. In her
written material and argument before me she raised a number of issues ranging
from bias, conflict of interest, failure to consider pertinent evidence, consideration
of impertinent evidence and much more. The only relevant matter is whether paragraph
209(1)(b) in the circumstances of this case conferred jurisdiction upon the
adjudicator to hear the case. His determination that he lacked jurisdiction,
as I have said, was correct and reasonable. The application is dismissed.
[5]
As
to costs, the Applicant was content with an award that the Court found to be
reasonable. After hearing from Counsel for the Respondent I find that the sum
of $2,500.00, is reasonable.
JUDGMENT
For the
reasons provided;
AND UPON reading the
material filed by the Applicant and the Respondent and hearing the submissions
from the Applicant:
THIS COURT
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that:
1. The
application is dismissed;
2. The
Respondent is entitled to costs fixed at the sum of $2,500.00 to be paid by the
Applicant.
“Roger
T. Hughes”
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-610-10
STYLE
OF CAUSE: SAWSAN SHARAF v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: OCTOBER 25, 2010
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT: HUGHES J.
DATED: OCTOBER 26, 2010
APPEARANCES:
|
Sawsan Sharaf
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
(SELF-REPRESENTED)
|
|
Stephan J. Bertrand
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Sawsan Sharaf
Toronto, Ontario
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
(SELF-REPRESENTED)
|
|
Myles J.
Kirvan
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content