Date: 20001115
Docket: A-63-00
CORAM: STRAYER J.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
BETWEEN:
FRANCE BEAUDRY, BRENDA STEVENS,
and ROSEMARIE PALMIERE
Appellants
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, JAN DANE,
CORINA SMITH, CAROLINE HEALY and SUSAN GUDGEON
Respondents
HEARD at Ottawa, Ontario, on Wednesday, November 15, 2000
JUDGMENT delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on Wednesday, November 15, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
Date: 20001115
Docket: A-63-00
CORAM: STRAYER J.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
BETWEEN:
FRANCE BEAUDRY, BRENDA STEVENS,
and ROSEMARIE PALMIERE
Appellants
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, JAN DANE,
CORINA SMITH, CAROLINE HEALY and SUSAN GUDGEON
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario
on Wednesday, November 15, 2000)
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
[1] The issue in this appeal is whether an Appeal Board of the Public Service Commission has the jurisdiction to hear and decide appeals under subsection 21(1.1) of the Public Service Employment Act by persons who do not meet the criteria established under subsection 13(1).
[2] Sharlow J. (as she then was), as did the Appeal Board itself, determined that an Appeal Board did not have such jurisdiction. We agree with their decisions. The relevant statutory provisions simply do not provide for appeals to an Appeal Board unless the appellant is a person who, at the time of the selection, meets the criteria established pursuant to subsection 13(1). Subsections 21(1), 21(1.1) and 13(1) provide:
| 21. (1) Where a person is appointed or is about to be appointed under this Act and the selection of the person for appointment was made by closed competition, every unsuccessful candidate may, within the period provided for by the regulations of the Commission, appeal against the appointment to a board established by the Commission to conduct an inquiry at which the person appealing and the deputy head concerned, or their representatives, shall be given an opportunity to be heard.
(1.1) Where a person is appointed or about to be appointed under this Act and the selection of the person for appointment was made from within the Public Service by a process of personnel selection, other than a competition, any person who, at the time of the selection, meets the criteria established pursuant to subsection 13(1) for the process may, within the period provided for by the regulations of the Commission, appeal against the appointment to a board established by the Commission to conduct an inquiry at which the person appealing and the deputy head concerned, or their representatives, shall be given an opportunity to be heard.
|
21. (1) Dans le cas d'une nomination, effective ou imminente, consécutive à un concours interne, tout candidat non reçu peut, dans le délai fixé par règlement de la Commission, en appeler de la nomination devant un comité chargé par elle de faire une enquête, au cours de laquelle l'appelant et l'administrateur général en cause, ou leurs représentants, ont l'occasion de se faire entendre.
(1.1) Dans le cas d'une nomination, effective ou imminente, consécutive à une sélection interne effectuée autrement que par concours, toute personne qui satisfait aux critères fixés en vertu du paragraphe 13(1) peut, dans le délai fixé par règlement de la Commission, en appeler de la nomination devant un comité chargé par elle de faire une enquête, au cours de laquelle l'appelant et l'administrateur général en cause, ou leurs représentants, ont l'occasion de se faire entendre.
|
| 13. (1) The Commission may establish, for competitions and other processes of personnel selection, geographic, organizational and occupational criteria that prospective candidates must meet in order to be eligible for appointment.
|
13. (1) En vue des concours ou autres modes de sélection du personnel, la Commission peut fixer les critères géographique, organisationnel et professionnel auxquels les candidats doivent satisfaire pour pouvoir être nommés.
|
[3] As Sharlow J. pointed out, individuals who do not meet the criteria under subsection 13(1), and therefore do not have a right of appeal under subsection 21(1.1), might well be able to challenge the validity of a selection process by means of judicial review. While, on a policy basis, one might think that such a challenge is better left to the expertise of an Appeal Board, Parliament chose not to provide Appeal Boards with jurisdiction to hear and decide appeals in these circumstances. The Court must take the words of Parliament as it finds them.
[4] The appellants argued that our conclusion would result in a lack of symmetry between judicial interpretations of subsection 21(1) and 21(1.1). However, the words of subsection 21(1) and 21(1.1) are different. Whether or not Parliament intended a symmetrical approach, the Court must interpret the words Parliament used.
[5] The appeal will be dismissed with costs.
"Marshall Rothstein"
J.A.
Email this Content