A-109-80
George Schwartz, Ken Parsons, Walter Peters,
Shelley Koral, Nancy Lam, P. Chip Kwong,
Michael Yee, Don Miller, Andrea Ligsay-Tibay-
an, A. R. Saldanha, T. E. L. Grant, D. J. H.
White, M. Somani, Noel Gotha, J. Takeda, Z.
Iandman and Jack Lee (Applicants)
v.
The Queen as represented by the Public Service
Commission, Department of National Revenue,
Taxation, and Minister of National Revenue
(Respondents)
Court of Appeal, Heald and Urie JJ. and Kelly
D.J.—Toronto, June 2, 1980.
Judicial review — Public Service — Whether successful
candidates in a competition held pursuant to s. 7(1)(a) of the
Public Service Employment Regulations are entitled to a
hearing in an appeal under s. 21 of Public Service Employment
Act — Application allowed — Applicants entitled to notice of
a hearing and to be heard by Appeal Board — Public Service
Employment Regulations, C.R.C. 1978, Vol. XIV, c. 1337, as
amended, s. 7(1)(a) — Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C.
1970, c. P-32, s. 21 — Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd
Supp.), c. 10, s. 28.
Perry v. Public Service Commission Appeal Board [1980]
1 S.C.R. 316, applied. Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk
Regional Board of Commissioners of Police [1979] 1
S.C.R. 311, applied. Dumouchel v. Appeal Board, Public
Service Commission [1977] 1 F.C. 573, referred to.
APPLICATION for judicial review.
COUNSEL:
R. Dexter for applicants.
T. L. James for respondents.
SOLICITORS:
Axton & Dexter, Toronto, for applicants.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondents.
The following are the reasons for judgment of
the Court rendered in English by
HEALD J.: We are all of the opinion that the
decision of the Chairman of the Appeal Board
cannot be allowed to stand. As a result of the
decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the
case of Perry v. Public Service Commission
Appeal Board [1980] 1 S.C.R. 316, the decision of
this Court in the case of Dumouchel v. Appeal
Board, Public Service Commission [1977] 1 F.C.
573 appears to be no longer applicable.
While the facts in this case are not identical to
those in the Perry case they are not, in our view,
sufficiently diverse so as to render the rationale of
that case inapplicable.
It seems clear to us that, as a matter of proce
dural fairness,' successful candidates in a closed
competition held pursuant to section 7(1)(a) of the
Public Service Employment Regulations, C.R.C.
1978, Vol. XIV, c. 1337, as amended, are entitled
to notice of a hearing of an appeal under section
21 of the Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C.
1970, c. P-32, and to be heard at that hearing.
Accordingly, the section 28 application is al
lowed, the decision of A. H. Rosenbaum, Chair
man, Appeal Board dated February 18, 1980 is set
aside and the matter is referred back to the Public
Service Commission Appeal Board for a new hear
ing. It is further directed that all of the successful
candidates in subject competition be given notice
of such hearings and be given an opportunity to be
heard thereat.
' See Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of
Commissioners of Police [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311.
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.