Judgments

Decision Information

Decision Content

A-410-79
Jean -Lue Patenaude and Michel Letellier De St-Just (Applicants)
v.
Mrs. J. A. Leduc and Claude Desnoyers (Defendants)
and
Public Service Staff Relations Board and Deputy Attorney General of Canada (Mis -en-cause)
Court of Appeal, Pratte and Le Dain JJ. and Hyde D.J.—Quebec City, December 18, 1979.
Judicial review — Public Service — Acceptance or non- acceptance of positions offered — Applicants accepted employer's offer subject to their right to submit grievance — Board erred in finding that applicants did not accept positions offered them — Error vitiates Board's decision — Application allowed, decision a quo quashed, and case referred back to Board to be decided on basis that applicants, in law, accepted outright the offers of employment — Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, s. 28.
APPLICATION for judicial review. COUNSEL:
Michel Doyon and Hubert Pichet for appli cants.
Robert Cousineau and Pierre Hamel for defendants and mis -en-cause Deputy Attor ney General of Canada.
SOLICITORS:
Garneau, Gauvin, Tourigny, Turgeon, For- tier, Doyon & Associés, Quebec City, for applicants.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for defendants and mis -en-cause Deputy Attor ney General of Canada.
The following is the English version of the reasons for judgment of the Court delivered orally by
PRATTE J.: We are all of the opinion that the decision a quo is based, at least in part, on the view expressed by the majority of the Board that applicants did not accept the positions that were
offered to them. We feel that this view is incorrect. In the view of the Court, by accepting the employ er's offer subject to their right to submit a griev ance regarding the length of the probation period, applicants accepted the offer outright. We are of the opinion that the error committed by the Board in this regard vitiates its decision, and this must accordingly be quashed.
The application will therefore be allowed, the decision a quo quashed and the case referred back to the Board for it to be decided on the basis that, in law, applicants must be regarded as having accepted outright the offers of employment that were made to them.
 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.