Date: 20020225
Docket: T-2232-01
Neutral reference: 2002 FCT 199
Montréal, Quebec, February 25, 2002
Before: Richard Morneau, prothonotary
BETWEEN:
CHARLOTTE RHÉAUME
Plaintiff
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is a motion to strike made by the defendant against the application for judicial review made by the plaintiff, following refusal by the Recourse and Review Branch of the Public Service Commission of Canada ("the Commission") on November 19, 2001 to proceed with the appeal brought by the plaintiff on October 30, 2001 pursuant to s. 21 of the Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-33 as amended.
[2] In her application for judicial review filed on December 19, 2001 the plaintiff actively sought the creation of an appeal board. Paragraphs 3 to 5, 11 and 14 of that application read:
[TRANSLATION]
3. The decision made by the Commission on November 19, 2001 is unreasonable and does not take into account the evidence before it. That decision is based on erroneous findings of fact. The facts giving rise to the plaintiff's appeal arose when she was a permanent employee of the Department of National Revenue;
4. The questions raised in the plaintiff's appeal document are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Commission or its appeal board: the latter are empowered to hear disputes;
5. The Commission improperly refused to exercise its jurisdiction: it is the only body capable of finding a complete solution to the disputes;
. . . . .
11. The plaintiff submits that her appeal is being brought within the limits prescribed by s. 21(1) and (1.1) of the Public Service Employment Act: the Commission or its appeal board has jurisdiction, in view of the various competitions, the selection process for appointments and the appointments to the position of AU-02, Principal Analyst, Technical Interpretations GST/HST, to decide the question of the validity of the determination of the area of selection which applied in 1999 pursuant to s. 13(1) and (2) of the Public Service Employment Act;
. . . . .
14. The Commission's decision of November 19, 2001 is subject to judicial review . . .
[3] Such a board was created and following a conference call in which the plaintiff appeared, the appeal board on February 6, 2002 issued its decision in which it adopted the arguments made by Françoise Huneault of the Commission in her letter of November 19, 2001.
[4] In view of the creation of the appeal board and its subsequent decision, therefore, the application for judicial review made by the plaintiff on December 19, 2001 is moot.
[5] Additionally, I do not think, in view of an administrative circular from the Commission (pp. 14 and 16 of the plaintiff's reply record) obtained after the application for judicial review was filed, that it is possible for the plaintiff to regard the letter of November 19, 2001 as the decision of an appeal board. If that had been the case, the plaintiff would certainly not have asked in her application for judicial review of December 19, 2001 for an appeal board to be created.
[6] Further, regarding the Commission's letter of November 19, 2001 as the decision of an appeal board would mean that the day after February 6, 2002 two appeal board decisions would be in place. This situation would give rise to a multiplicity of similar proceedings for judicial review. If there must be a judicial review, it should be against the appeal board decision of February 6, 2002.
[7] The defendant's motion to strike is accordingly allowed and the application for judicial review filed on December 19, 2001 struck out, the whole without costs.
[8] These reasons for order and this order are applicable mutatis mutandis and will be entered in case T-2233-01.
|
|
Richard Morneau
Prothonotary |
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
|
|
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20020225
Docket: T-2232-01
Between:
CHARLOTTE RHÉAUME Plaintiff and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
|
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE: T-2232-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: CHARLOTTE RHÉAUME
Plaintiff
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Defendant
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: February 18, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
DATED: February 26, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Charlotte Rhéaume for the plaintiff
Diane Pelletier for the defendant
Christian Alcindor for the plaintiff in case T-2233-01
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg for the defendant
Deputy Attorney General of Canada