A-455-78
Luc Doyon (Applicant)
v.
Public Service Staff Relations Board and Patrice
Garant (Respondents)
and
The Queen (Mis -en-cause)
Court of Appeal, Pratte and Le Dain JJ. and Hyde
D.J.—Montreal, January 10, 1979.
Judicial review — Public Service — Member of Public
Service Staff Relations Board in capacity of adjudicator
amending, pursuant to s. 25 of the Public Service Staff Rela
tions Act, earlier decision rendered by him that had upheld
applicant's grievance — Whether or not s. 25 confers on an
adjudicator the power to amend his decisions — Federal Court
Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, s. 28 — Public Service
Staff Relations Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. P-35, s. 25.
APPLICATION for judicial review.
COUNSEL:
P. Lesage for applicant.
No one for respondents.
J. C. Demers for mis -en-cause.
SOLICITORS:
Trudel, Nadeau, Létourneau, Lesage &
Cleary, Montreal, for applicant.
Public Service Staff Relations Board,
Ottawa, for Public Service Staff Relations
Board.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
mis -en-cause.
The following is the English version of the
reasons for judgment delivered orally by
PRATTE J.: In accordance with section 28 of the
Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c.
10, applicant is challenging a decision rendered on
August 25, 1978 by a member of the Public Ser
vice Staff Relations Board. In this decision Mr.
Garant amended another decision rendered by him
on July 10, 1978 in the capacity of an adjudicator
under the Public Service Staff Relations Act,
R.S.C. 1970, c. P-35, in which he had upheld a
grievance submitted by applicant and referred to
adjudication pursuant to section 91.
Mr. Garant amended his decision because he
assumed, like the parties appearing before him,
that section 25 1 of the Public Service Staff Rela
tions Act confers on an adjudicator the power to
amend his decisions. In my opinion, that is an
incorrect assumption.
Section 2 of the Public Service Staff Relations
Act gives the following definitions of "adjudica-
tor" and "Board":
"adjudicator" means a member assigned to hear and determine
a reference to adjudication and includes, where the context
permits, a board of adjudication established under section 93
and an adjudicator named in a collective agreement for the
purposes of that agreement;
"Board" means the Public Service Staff Relations Board estab
lished under section 11;
These two definitions clearly demonstrate that an
adjudicator should not be seen as synonymous with
the Board. The only relationship between the two
would seem to be that the adjudicator is often a
member of the Board and that, under sections 92
et seq., the Board plays an administrative role in
the reference of grievances to adjudication.
Section 25 confers on the Board the power to
rescind and vary its decisions; however, it confers
this power only on the Board, not on the adjudica
tors, and only with respect to the decisions of the
Board itself. As an adjudicator may not be regard
ed as synonymous with the Board, I consider that
it is impossible to say that decisions made by an
adjudicator are subject to amendment under sec
tion 25. Contrary to the argument made by coun
sel for the respondents, it cannot be inferred that
decisions of adjudicators are decisions of the Board
' This provision reads as follows:
25. The Board may review, rescind, amend, alter or vary
any decision or order made by it, or may rehear any applica
tion before making an order in respect thereof, except that
any rights acquired by virtue of any decision or order that is
so reviewed, rescinded, amended, altered or varied shall not
be altered or extinguished with effect from a day earlier than
the day on which such review, rescission, amendment, altera
tion or variation is made.
merely from the fact that the adjudicators are
most often members of the Board.
For these reasons, I would allow the application
and quash the decision a quo.
• * *
LE DAIN J. concurred.
* * *
HYDE D.J. concurred.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.