Date: 19990309
Docket: A-452-97
(T-19-96)
CORAM: STRAYER J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
BETWEEN:
JANICE MASLANKO
Appellant
(Applicant)
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
(Respondent)
Heard at Ottawa (Ontario) on Tuesday, March 9, 1999.
Judgment delivered from the Bench on March 9, 1999.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY: DÉCARY J.A.
Date: 19990309
Docket: A-452-97
(T-19-96)
CORAM: STRAYER J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
BETWEEN:
JANICE MASLANKO
Appellant
(Applicant)
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
(Respondent)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa (Ontario)
on Tuesday, March 9, 1999.)
DÉCARY J.A.
[1] This appeal was heard at the same time as the appeal in Roberts and Volpe v. Attorney General of Canada, A-407-97 and the reasons filed in Roberts and Volpe, except with respect to the following considerations, apply to the within appeal.
[2] While we generally agree with the reasons for judgment given by Mr. Justice MacKay1, we have some concern with his view that the factor of "significant change in functions" is not an issue in the circumstances because this is not a case where new functions were added to an existing position, but a case where the employee is assigned to a separate position. We need not, however, reach a definite conclusion on this point since there was simply not enough evidence before the Public Service Commission Appeal Board ("the Appeal Board") to enable it to conclude that there was a significant or substantial change in functions. The burden rested on the appellant to satisfy the Appeal Board that there was such a change and the appellant, in our view, has failed in that regard.
[3] The appeal will be dismissed with costs.
"Robert Décary"
J.A.
__________________
1 Reported as Maslanko v. Canada (Attorney General) (1997), 132 F.T.R. 15 (F.C.T.D.).
Email this Content