Girard v. Canada
T-3373-90
Rouleau J.
25/3/94
14 pp.
Term employees -- Claim for damages for statutory delict and claim to be reinstated in permanent position of primary products inspector -- Plaintiff worked as a primary products inspector for Department of Agriculture as term employee, but contract renewed annually for nearly five years-As plaintiff fully acquainted with federal government's policy of making contract employees who had completed five years permanent employees, he obtained confirmation he would become permanent "if everything goes as expected" -- Two weeks before five-year term ended, Department terminated plaintiff's contract alleging reorganization of permanent staff, proposed cut in person-years and strike occurring in abattoir near plaintiff's -- Plaintiff submitted Department's actions contrary to policy of granting indeterminate status to persons hired on contract who after five years of continuous service, abuse of discretion and failure to act fairly; further submitted Department's actions disappointed legitimate expectation of becoming indeterminate employee-Defendants argued Treasury Board policy providing term employee with more than five years' continuous service should ordinarily be hired on indeterminate basis not at issue since plaintiff did not accumulate five years continuous service; further, if plaintiff's situation were to fall within this policy, it conferred no executory or fundamental right -- Legitimate expectation may exist as consequence of promise by public authority or as result of current practice which should be applied if reasonable to do so -- Principle of legitimate expectation restatement of fundamental duty to act fairly-Theory of legitimate expectation cannot create fundamental rights-Circumstances do not support legitimate expectation: (1) promise he would be made indeterminate employee made by immediate superior, who did not have authority to do so; (2) Department compelled not to apply administrative policy for valid reasons, since priority to protect indeterminate employees; (3) essential for Department, in performing administrative functions incumbent on it, to take necessary steps to deal with eventual and inevitable reduction in staff -- Directive or policy does not have force of law because lacks essential features of regulation -- Courts do not intervene to enforce rule they consider to be essentially administrative in nature and scope-Treasury Board administrative policy simply internal rule of conduct -- Application dismissed.