Abraham v. Canada ( Attorney General )
T-1500-98
Cullen J.
3/3/99
13 pp.
Judicial review of Public Service Appeal Board's dismissal of appeals against selections for appointment-Department not providing evidence regarding oral communications assessment, despite applicants' request through disclosure process-Board granting adjournment to allow members of selection board to review notes in order to adduce evidence about assessment of oral communications abilities of candidates-Following that ruling, Chairman ordered parties should hold further disclosure meeting-Application dismissed-(1) Board not erring in law when granted adjournment to allow Department to present additional information regarding assessments of applicants' oral communication skills-Public Service Employment Regulations, s. 25(8) providing where full disclosure not completed within certain time, appeal board may on its own initiative make order imposing any measure considers necessary for completion of full disclosure-Board acting within scope of authority set out in s. 25(8) in granting adjournment to allow Department to present additional information-Applying test set out in Field v. Canada (Attorney General) (1995), 93 F.T.R. 158 (F.C.T.D.), Chairman deciding to proceed with hearing because evidence to be given by selection board after adjournment sufficient to satisfy him adequate evidentiary framework on which to proceed-Applicants submitting Department failed to provide explanation why information presented at such late stage-S. 25(8) allowing board, on own initiative, to make order allowing such late presentation of information, not requiring party presenting that information to provide any explanation as to why information must be presented at that time-Distinction between situation in which applicant failing to make allegation in first instance, in which case applicant alleging Court adopting strict approach, and situations in which Board granting adjournment to allow Department to review evidence, adduce further evidence, make renewed disclosure-Former situation dealing with rules applicable to pleadings while latter dealing with rules applying in presentation of evidence-In instant case, Court need not adopt strict approach-That Board provided for renewed disclosure meeting supporting finding Board complying with duty of fairness-(2) Chairman setting out applicants' second allegation that selection board patently unreasonable in that not awarding any candidate marks for identifying 10 items required in question 1 of written abilities, summarizing evidence, concluding intervention not warranted-Although not specifically mentioning identification of items in Question 1, addressing allegation in course of reasons-Summary of evidence showing considered applicants' allegations with respect to portion of Question 1 requiring identification of items-Conclusion implicitly including dismissal of allegation with respect to identification of items in Question 1-That concluded matter in favour of Department suggesting accepted evidence of departmental representative, rejected in entirety allegations with respect to all portions of question 1-Public Service Employment Regulations, SOR/93-286, s. 25(8) (as am. by SOR/96-482, s. 4).