PUBLIC SERVICE |
Selection Process |
Merit Principle |
Larose v. Canada (Attorney General)
T-1007-01
2002 FCT 1106, Tremblay-Lamer J.
22-10-02
18 pp.
Judicial review of interlocutory decision by Public Service Commission Appeal Board, concluding employing Department had not created new positions in altering administrative organization of management positions in all Canada Human Resources Centres (CHRC) in Quebec, abolishing one level of management (associate director PM-05), transferring to PM-04s (service directors) duties of abolished position and proceeding to reclassify PM-04 employees into PM-05 positions in accordance with Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), s. 10(2)--Consequence of decision to allow merit selection of candidates pursuant to PSEA, s.. 10(2)--Plaintiffs potential candidates for selection by comparative merit (PSEA, s. 10(1)), since in selection area for positions in question--Appeal Board dismissed Department's objection in this regard and found that question of whether these were new or existing positions could and should be decided by Appeal Board--Whether Appeal Board erred in law in concluding it had necessary jurisdiction to determine whether positions in question reclassified or new positions--Application dismissed--Appeal Board's only function to determine whether appointment proposed by selection board made on merit principle--Any ancillary jurisdiction which it may have should be related to this single function--If it has to rule on validity of selection methods set out in s. 10(1), (2), it should at least come to conclusion merit principle better served if appointments made on basis of relative merit mentioned in s. 10(1) rather than on basis of individual merit mentioned in s. 10(2)--Federal Court of Appeal has held no hierarchy in selection methods: Canada (Attorney General) v. Laidlaw (1998), 237 N.R. 1 (F.C.A.)-- Therefore impossible for Appeal Board to allow appeal on ground individual merit principle infringing merit principle, since that selection method not inferior to other--Appeal Board therefore did not have necessary jurisdiction to decide whether positions reclassified or new: Beaudry v. Canada (Attorney General) (2000), 180 F.T.R. 279 (F.C.T.D.), affirmed at (2000), 264 N.R. 389 (F.C.A.)--Accordingly, Appeal Board did not have necessary jurisdiction to deal with validity of decision by reclassification officer to reclassify positions at issue pursuant to Financial Administration Act, s. 11(2)--Financial Administration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-11, s. 11(2)--Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-33, s. 10(1), (2) (as am. by S.C. 1992, c. 54, s. 10).