[1] As the issue before the Public Service Staff Relations Board was whether respondent Marceau had refused to qualify the applicant as a candidate because of his union affiliation, it is difficult to understand why the Board refused to allow the applicant to examine the respondent Marceau concerning past events in order to possibly demonstrate an anti-union animus on his part.

[2] Unlike the Board, which stated that such evidence would be of little relevance, we are all of the opinion that such evidence is indubitably highly relevant and, indeed, crucial to the issue before the Board, to wit, whether an anti-union animus existed against the applicant. Under the circumstances, the Board's refusal to hear this evidence is a breach of the rules of natural justice (see Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières v. Larocque, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 471, at paragraphs 46 to 52). Consequently, the Board's decision cannot be upheld.

[3] For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be allowed with costs, the decision of the Board will be set aside and the matter will be referred back to the Board for reconsideration before a differently constituted panel.

"M. Nadon"

J.A.

Certified true translation

Michael Palles

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: A-281-04

STYLE OF CAUSE: RÉAL LAMARCHE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

and YVAN MARCEAU

PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa

DATE OF HEARING: March 8, 2005

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: Desjardins, Nadon, and Pelletier JJ.A.

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Nadon J.A.

APPEARANCES:

Sean McGee

Annie Berthiaume

FOR THE APPLICANT

Stéphane Hould

FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Nelligan, O'Brien, Payne LLP

Ottawa, Ontario

FOR THE APPLICANT

John Sims, Q.C.

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario

FOR THE RESPONDENT

You are here

Lamarche v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FCA 92

Citations2005 FCA 92

Case tabs

Citations
2005 FCA 92