Digests

Public Service

Practice

Judicial review of decision by Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) denying grievance regarding policy used during dismissal—Issues proper standard of review, whether rescinded executive employment transition policy correctly applied to applicant—Court disagreeing with finding in Peck v. Parks Canada, 2009 FC 686 that case law concerning final level grievance decisions under Public Service Labour Relations Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22 (PSLRA) setting reasonableness as appropriate standard of review—Final level grievance tribunals determining too broad a range of grievances to be afforded same degree of deference—Reviewing court should compare nature of question raised with case law before reaching conclusion—Parliament not intending that subject to judicial review for unreasonableness, employer determining which set of terms, conditions governing employees—Lack of independant arbitrator strong indicator that final level grievance process to be afforded less deference—Weak privative clause in PSLRA for final level grievance consistent with legislator’s cautiousness—When guideline, policy, directive part of employment contract, grievance alleging employer breach under PSLRA entitled to correct final level grievance decision—Treasury Board not bound by Web site version of its policies—Treasury Board entitled to deviate from written policy—Lack of evidence regarding deviation in applicant’s case not substantive error—No evidence CTA using incorrect policy—Application dismissed.

Appleby-Ostroff v. Canada (Attorney General) (T-1913-08, 2010 FC 479, O’Keefe J., judgment dated May 3, 2010, 32 pp.)