Laidlaw v. Canada ( Attorney General )
T-1107-98
Pelletier J.
26/4/99
16 pp.
Application for judicial review of Deployment investigator's decision dismissing applicants' complaints with respect to deployment of one Cheryl MacLellan, bilingual indeterminate employee of Revenue Canada at equivalent of PM-04 having completed Management Trainee Program in early 1997-Revenue Canada official, realizing no acting or substantive Team Leader meeting bilingual requirement, in November 1997, offered MacLellan deployment to position of PM-04 Team Leader, Collection (bilingual imperative) and assignment to position of Team Leader, Underground Economy (PM-04), with salary continuing at same level as before-Employee went directly to Team Leader, Underground Economy position and has not worked in Team Leader, Collection position-Public Service Employment Act (PSEA) providing deployments shall be made in such manner as Treasury Board may direct (inter alia giving advance notice of upcoming deployment opportunities in work unit to which deployment to be made)-Advance notice herein given October 31, 1997 by announcement at Team Leaders meeting-Written notice given November 12, 1997 advising deployment effective November 7, 1997-Supplementary notice published same day advising language profile of position bilingual imperative-Neither notice specified employee's pre-deployment group and level-Applicants complained deployment constituted abuse of authority as provided in PSEA, s. 34.3(1)-Deployment investigator dismissed complaint-Application for judicial review alleging Deployment investigator erred in law in concluding advance notice of deployment not insufficient; in concluding failure to specify group and level of employee not flaw rendering deployment unlawful; in concluding deployment not abuse of authority; based decision on erroneous findings of fact made in perverse or capricious manner or without regard for evidence before him-Application allowed-Both Treasury Board and Revenue Canada policies require advance notice of deployment opportunities (use of word opportunities suggests deployments in question potential placements for employees in work unit)-Requirement of advance notice not met by advance notice of decision to deploy particular person to particular position-Deployment investigator either failed to exercise jurisdiction in not dealing with issue of validity of advance notice or erred in law in deciding, implicitly, advance notice given here complied with deployment policy requirements-Failure to specify group and level of employee breach of requirements of Revenue Canada policy but not flaw rendering deployment unlawful-Use of deployment to create appearance of compliance with PSEA so that employee can be placed into another position by means of assignment or secondment, free of constraints imposed by Act and other limiting conditions, abuse of right of deployment and, to that extent, abuse of authority-Deployment investigator herein failed to address question and to that extent declined to exercise jurisdiction or, in alternative, erred in law in finding deployment of employee not abuse of authority-Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-33, s. 34.2(1) (as enacted by S.C. 1992, c. 54, s. 22).