PUBLIC SERVICE |
Selection Process |
Merit Principle |
Barbeau v. Canada (Attorney General)
T-584-01
2002 FCT 454, Blais J.
19/4/02
19 pp.
Application for judicial review of decision of Public Service Commission Appeal Board--Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) intending to run closed competition for specified term for position of Human Resources Generalist & Supporting People Coordinator (PE-02) to all employees working within HRDC's Kingston-Pembroke Management Area--Applicant did not meet personal suitability criterion, did not obtain position--Public Service Employment Act, s. 10(1) enshrines merit principle requiring best persons possible be selected for appointment in Federal Public Service--Act, s. 21 providing for possibility of appeal against appointments, proposed appointments in Federal Public Service--Whether Chairman erred in law in failing to determine whether Selection Board's interpretation of experience criteria may have adversely affected principle of selection according to merit--Appeal Board not possessing sufficient expertise in interpreting Act so as to warrant deference of Court except in particular circumstances--Errors of law, errors of jurisdiction, requirements of merit principle raising issue of law, all subject to review on standard of correctness--Applicable standard of review in case at bar reasonableness simpliciter-- Appointments from within Public Service must be based on selection according to merit--Discrepancy created between wording of Statement of Qualification, interpretation made of it in e-mail exchange caused competition process to become flawed from outset--Selection Board instrument used by Public Service Commission to perform duty to select candidates on basis of merit--Entire competition process tainted as experience requirement in Statement of Qualifications interpreted differently by Rick Mallory, Karen Gunn in e-mail exchange with Colleen Kelley--Information communicated to Colleen Kelley, from applicant's perspective, had effect of excluding potential candidates from competition--When unsuccessful candidate exercises right of appeal under Act, s. 21, central issue not protection of appellant's rights, rather prevention of appointment made contrary to merit principle--Appeal Board incorrectly interpreted Statement of Qualifications--Interpretation of experience requirement erroneous, justified intervention of Court--Serious discrepancy between experience requirement of Statement of Qualifications, e-mails which interpreted it differently--Error committed ab initio vitiated entire competition process--Application allowed--Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-33, ss. 10 (as am. by S.C. 1992, c. 54, s. 10), 21 (as am. idem, s. 16; S.C. 1996, c. 18, s. 15).