Date: 20030613
Docket: T-1173-02
Citation: 2003 FCT 735
OTTAWA, Ontario, Friday, the 13th day of June, 2003
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KELEN
BETWEEN:
HEATHER MARTIN
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and
ROBERTA MAYFIELD
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of Public Service Appeal Board Chairperson Michael R. Sloan dated June 21, 2002, in which he found the applicant's allegation was not "sufficiently detailed" as required by subsection 27(1) of the Public Service Employment Regulations, 2000, SOR/2000-80, (the "Regulations") and dismissed the appeal.
BACKGROUND FACTS
[2] The respondent, Ms. Roberta Mayfiled, was appointed without a competition to the position of Secretary to the Commanding Officer, "H" Division, at the RCMP's Halifax office. On March 11, 2002, the applicant filed an appeal under section 21 of the Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-33 (the "PSEA") against the appointment of the respondent Ms. Roberta Mayfield. The filing of this appeal triggered the disclosure process prescribed by sections 25 through 27 of the Regulations, which have been attached to these reasons as an appendix. Pursuant to subsection 26(1) an appellant is to be granted access to any information or document relevant to the appeal. The appellant is then required by subsection 27(1) to provide the department with written allegations that are "sufficiently detailed to permit it to respond." The relevant sections of the Regulations are reproduced here for ease of reference:
Access
26. (1) An appellant shall be provided access, on request, to any information, or any document that contains information, that pertains to the appellant or to the successful candidate and that may be presented before the appeal board.
[...]
Allegations in writing
27. (1) The allegations submitted by the appellant to the deputy head concerned shall be in writing and sufficiently detailed to permit the deputy head to provide a response.
Accès
26. (1) L'appelant a accès sur demande à l'information, notamment tout document, le concernant ou concernant le candidat reçu et qui est susceptible d'être communiquée au comité d'appel.
[...]
Allégations par écrit
27. (1) Les allégations que l'appelant envoie à l'administrateur général en cause sont remises par écrit et sont suffisamment détaillées pour que celui-ci puisse y répondre.
[3] Concurrent to the disclosure process, the department and the applicant agreed to participate in the Public Service Commission's Early Intervention Program (the "EI Program"). A meeting concerning both the disclosure process and the EI Program was held on April 8, 2002. Prior to the meeting, the department's representative made several requests for specifics of the allegations. On April 24, 2002, the applicant's representative submitted the following allegation:
The appointment of Roberta Mayfield to the ST SCY-04 position violated the merit principle.
The Adjournment of the Motion to Dismiss
[4] On May 27, 2002, one day before the scheduled Appeal Board hearing, the department's representative sent the applicant and her representative an e-mail stating the department would be seeking to dismiss the appeal because the allegation was not sufficiently detailed. At the outset of the hearing on May 28, 2002, the department's representative submitted a motion for dismissal. When asked by the Chairperson, the applicant and her representative confirmed that they had received notice of the motion the day before. A request for an adjournment was made by the applicant's representative so that he could have an opportunity to consider the motion, contact his
union headquarters in Ottawa and research the case law, particularly Savoie v. Canada (Attorney General), 180 F.T.R. 135, [2000] F.C.J. No. 3 (QL) with which he was not familiar. The request was granted and the applicant's representative given until June 4, 2002 to make written submissions regarding the motion to dismiss. In his submissions, the applicant's representative took the position that the RCMP "knows full well from the talks that we had at Disclosure/EI what is Heather Martin's beef is [sic] with this arbitrary staffing without merit." No additional allegations were submitted.
The Decision
[5] The Appeal Board Chairperson issued his decision on the motion on June 21, 2002. He concluded that the department had met its obligation to provide the applicant with access to pertinent information and/or documents as required by subsection 26(1). He found that the applicant failed to meet her obligation to provide a sufficiently detailed allegation because "[s]uch a broadly and vaguely stated allegation is essentially devoid of any practical meaning, and it prevents an understanding of what exactly the application believes is deficient with the selection for an appointment so as to cause it not to have been made according to merit." Because the applicant failed to present any issue on which there was a need to be heard, the Chairperson dismissed the appeal. The decision notes that the chair would consider "whether further action, if any, may be necessary with respect to the hearing of the appeal.
[6] In this application for judicial review, the applicant is not challenging the Chairperson's finding that the allegation was not sufficiently detailed; rather, the applicant challenges the decision to dismiss her appeal. She submits that subsection 25(9) of the Regulations obligated the Appeal Board Chairperson to consider alternative ways of effecting "full disclosure" before dismissing her appeal, such as setting a new hearing date and ordering her to provide a detailed allegation forthwith.
ANALYSIS
[7] Section 25 of the Regulations sets out a timetable for the steps necessary for an appeal under the PSEA to go forward. In essence, it requires that "full disclosure" be provided before the hearing goes forward. The term "full disclosure" is defined in section 1 of the Regulations:
"full disclosure"
"full disclosure" means that the appellant has
(a) obtained access to the information or documents referred to in subsection 26(1); and
(b) submitted the allegations referred to in subsection 27(1) to the deputy head concerned.
[Emphasis added.]
« _divulgation complète_ »
« _divulgation complète_ » Le fait que l'appelant a :
a) eu accès à l'information ou aux documents visés au paragraphe 26(1);
b) envoyé à l'administrateur général en cause les allégations visées au paragraphe 27(1).
Subsection 25(9) grants an Appeal Board the power to implement any measure necessary to ensure "full disclosure" is provided:
Order
(9) An appeal board may, at any time, make an order imposing any measure it considers necessary to complete full disclosure.
Ordonnance
(9) Le comité d'appel peut, à tout moment, rendre une ordonnance imposant toute mesure qu'il estime nécessaire pour permettre la divulgation complète.
[8] In support of her position, the applicant relies upon Lutfy J.'s (as he was then) decision in Savoie v. Canada (A.G), supra. In Savoie the tax department was presented with a similarly worded allegation to the one in the case at bar. Without giving prior notice to the appellant, the department brought a motion to dismiss the appeal at the outset of the hearing and in response the appellant requested an adjournment. After hearing both parties and taking the matter under advisement for a short period of time, the Appeal Board refused to grant the adjournment and dismissed the appeal.
[9] Lutfy J. found that decision to be an error for four reasons. The reasons concerned the Appeal Board's failure to allow the appellant an opportunity to be heard. Those portions of Lutfy J.'s decision are not applicable here because:
(i) the applicant was repeatedly advised by the RCMP that the allegations were not sufficiently detailed;
(ii) the applicant was granted an adjournment to deal with the matter and specifically referred to Savoie, supra.;
(iii) the Appeal Board did canvass the possibility of allowing the applicant to make full disclosure but noted the applicant made no such request (notwithstanding being referred to Savoie, supra.); and,
(iv) the applicant was given the opportunity to be heard but steadfastly refused to follow the clear and obvious requirement for sufficient details of the allegations.
Lufy J. stated at paragraph 18 that section 25 of The Public Service Employment Regulations, 1993 (its provisions are split between sections 25 and 27 of the current Regulations) required the Appeal Board to canvas the possibilities of full disclosure before dismissing the applicant's appeal. He then went on to conclude at paragraph 21:
[TRANSLATION] The Appeal Board Chair decided three matters simultaneously: (a) the applicant's allegations were not sufficiently detailed; (b) his request for an adjournment was refused; and (c) his appeal was dismissed. There is nothing in the record nor in the reasons of the Appeal Board Chair which discloses that the applicant was afforded the opportunity to supplement his allegations orally, after the ruling that his grounds for appeal were insufficiently particularized and prior to the dismissal of his appeal. In my view, in the circumstances of this case where the applicant had no prior notice of the government institution's dissatisfaction with his allegations and of its intention to seek the dismissal of the appeal, the scheme set out in subsections 25(2), (6), (8) and (10) required the Appeal Board Chair to provide this final opportunity for full disclosure before he considered and ruled on the motion to dismiss. [Emphasis added.]
[10] The respondent contends that while the Appeal Board Chairperson did not expressly refer to subsection 25(9) in his reasons, he did turn his mind to the issue. This is evidenced by the lengthy discussion surrounding the issue of whether the relief requested by the RCMP should be granted. It is implicit in the decision that the Chairperson found the circumstances did not justify the exercise of his discretion under subsection 25(9). Further, this case is distinguishable from Savoie, supra. because the Chairperson did consider alternatives to dismissal and gave the applicant an opportunity to consider the motion and make submissions.
[11] I agree with the respondent. The Chairperson did turn his mind to alternative ways of effecting "full disclosure" before dismissing the appeal. The Appeal Board in Savoie failed to consider whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify moving forward with the appeal even though the allegation in question lacked sufficient detail. The approach of the Appeal Board Chairperson in the case at bar stands in contrast. By granting the requested adjournment, the Chairperson was telling the applicant to either complete full disclosure by providing more detailed allegations or alternatively, provide an explanation of why the hearing should move forward if that could not be done. The applicant's submissions were not satisfactory in either regard. At page 9 of his reasons, the Chairperson explicitly cited subsections 27(2) and (3) of the Regulations (subsection 27(2) is the successor provision to the former subsection 25(2) and referred to by Lutfy J.) and noted that the applicant's submissions did not include any new allegations and made no reference to any exceptional circumstances.
[12] Furthermore, it was reasonable for the Chairperson to dismiss the appeal rather than order the production of a detailed allegation pursuant to subsection 25(9). The obvious purpose of that subsection is to give the Appeal Board the authority to enforce the disclosure provisions when one of the parties causes prejudice to the other by failing to fulfil its obligations. Allowing the applicant to use that provision to excuse her failure would undermine its very purpose. She was
asked several times by the department to provide specifics of her allegation prior to the hearing and had an experienced representative, so it cannot be said she was unaware of her obligations. She was also granted an adjournment so she could address her failure or provide reasons why she was unable to produce a detailed allegation. She did neither. The Chairperson was not obligated to order the applicant to comply with subsection 27(1) when she was the only party who was prejudiced by her failure to comply voluntarily. As the applicant had carriage of the appeal and failed to take the necessary steps to move it forward according to the clear rules, the only reasonable response was to dismiss her appeal.
[13] Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Chairperson correctly considered whether to exercise his discretion in the circumstances, and reasonably refused to order full disclosure after the applicant had been clearly directed to her legal obligation in that regard.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:
This application for judicial review is dismissed with costs.
________________________________
J.F.C.C.
APPENDIX
Sections 25 through 27 of the Regulations:
Notice of hearing
25. (1) Subject to subsection (4), the registrar of appeals shall send to the deputy head concerned, the successful candidate and the appellant a notice in writing indicating the date, time and place of the hearing at least 14 days before the date of the hearing.
Notice after full disclosure
(2) Subject to subsections (5) and (7), the notice of hearing shall only be given after full disclosure is completed.
Full disclosure
(3) Subject to subsection (8) and (9), full disclosure shall be completed within 45 days after the date of the letter, referred to in paragraph 23(b), that acknowledges receipt of the written document bringing the appeal.
Shorter notice
(4) If the persons referred to in subsection (1) agree, the notice of hearing may be given less than 14 days before the date of the hearing.
Hearing after disclosure period expired
(5) The notice of hearing may be given after the period referred to in subsection (3) has expired, whether or not full disclosure has been completed.
Hearing after disclosure completed
(6) The notice of hearing may be given before the expiry of the period referred to in subsection (3) if full disclosure has been completed and confirmed in writing by the persons referred to in subsection (1).
Hearing in other circumstances
(7) The notice of hearing may be given before full disclosure is completed if the appeal concerns
(a) an acting appointment;
Avis d'audition
25. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (4), le greffier des appels envoie à l'appelant, à l'administrateur général en cause et au candidat reçu un avis indiquant les date, heure et lieu de l'audition de l'appel, au moins quatorze jours avant la date de l'audition.
Avis après la divulgation complète
(2) Sous réserve des paragraphes (5) et (7), l'avis d'audition ne peut être donné qu'après la divulgation complète.
Divulgation complète
(3) Sous réserve des paragraphes (8) et (9), la divulgation complète doit être réalisée dans les quarante-cinq jours suivant la date de l'accusé de réception du document écrit visé au paragraphe 21(1).
Délai plus court
(4) Si les personnes visées au paragraphe (1) y consentent, l'avis de l'audition peut être donné moins de quatorze jours avant la date de l'audition.
Audition à l'expiration du délai
(5) L'avis d'audition peut être donné après l'expiration du délai visé au paragraphe (3), que la divulgation complète soit réalisée ou non.
Audition après la divulgation complète
(6) L'avis d'audition peut être donné avant l'expiration du délai visé au paragraphe (3), si la divulgation complète est réalisée et est confirmée par écrit par les personnes visées au paragraphe (1).
Audition suite aux autres circonstances
(7) L'avis d'audition peut être donné avant que soit réalisée la divulgation complète si l'appel porte sur, selon le cas:
(b) an appointment for a specified period;
(c) an appointment made as a result of measures taken under subsection 21(3) of the Act; or
(d) a jurisdictional issue.
Extensions and other measures
(8) If an appeal board has reasonable grounds to believe that full disclosure cannot be completed within the period referred to in subsection (3), it may within that period, on the request of the appellant or the deputy head concerned, make an order
(a) if necessary, extending that period one or more times; or
(b) imposing any measure it considers necessary to complete full disclosure.
Order
(9) An appeal board may, at any time, make an order imposing any measure it considers necessary to complete full disclosure.
Access
26. (1) An appellant shall be provided access, on request, to any information, or any document that contains information, that pertains to the appellant or to the successful candidate and that may be presented before the appeal board.
Copies
(2) The deputy head concerned shall provide the appellant, on request, with a copy of any document referred to in subsection (1).
Refusal to disclose
(3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), the deputy head concerned or the Commission, as appropriate, may refuse to allow access to information or a document, or to provide a copy of a document, if the disclosure might
(a) threaten national security or any person's safety;
(b) prejudice the continued use of a standardized test that is owned by the deputy
a) une nomination intérimaire;
b) une nomination pour une période déterminée;
c) une nomination consécutive à une mesure visée au paragraphe 21(3) de la Loi;
d) une question de compétence.
Prorogation et autres mesures
(8) Si le comité d'appel a des motifs raisonnables de croire que la divulgation complète ne peut être réalisée dans le délai visé au paragraphe (3), il peut, à la demande de l'appelant ou de l'administrateur général en cause, avant l'expiration de ce délai, rendre une ordonnance:
a) prorogeant le délai une ou plusieurs fois, s'il y a lieu;
b) imposant toute mesure qu'il estime; nécessaire pour en permettre la réalisation.
Ordonnance
(9) Le comité d'appel peut, à tout moment, rendre une ordonnance imposant toute mesure qu'il estime nécessaire pour permettre la divulgation complète.
Accès
26. (1) L'appelant a accès sur demande à l'information, notamment tout document, le concernant ou concernant le candidat reçu et qui est susceptible d'être communiquée au comité d'appel.
Copies
(2) L'administrateur général en cause fournit sur demande à l'appelant une copie de tout document visé au paragraphe (1).
Refus de divulguer
(3) Malgré les paragraphes (1) et (2), l'administrateur général en cause ou la Commission peut refuser de donner accès à l'information ou aux documents ou de fournir copie des documents dont l'un ou l'autre dispose, dans le cas où cela risquerait :
a) soit de menacer la sécurité nationale ou la sécurité d'une personne;
b) soit de nuire à l'utilisation continue d'un
test standardisé qui appartient au ministère
head's department or the Commission or that is commercially available; or
(c) affect the results of such a standardized test by giving an unfair advantage to any individual.
Appeal board
(4) If the deputy head concerned or the Commission refuses to allow access to information or a document under subsection (3), the appellant may request that the appeal board order such access.
Conditions
(5) If the appeal board orders access to information or a document under subsection (4), that access is subject, before and during the hearing, to any conditions that the appeal board considers necessary to prevent the situations described in paragraphs (3)(a) to (c) from occurring.
Use
(6) Any information or document obtained under this section shall be used only for purposes of the appeal.
Allegations in writing
27. (1) The allegations submitted by the appellant to the deputy head concerned shall be in writing and sufficiently detailed to permit the deputy head to provide a response.
Oral allegations
(2) Despite subsection (1), in exceptional circumstances and with the consent of the appeal board, allegations may be submitted orally.
New or amended allegations
(3) An appellant may only amend allegations, or introduce new allegations, at an appeal if the amendments or new allegations result from information obtained after full disclosure has been completed that could not otherwise have reasonably been obtained by the appellant during disclosure.
de l'administrateur général en cause ou à la Commission ou qui est offert sur le marché;
c) soit de fausser les résultats d'un tel test en conférant un avantage indu à une personne.
Comité d'appel
(4) Si l'administrateur général en cause ou la Commission refuse de donner accès à de l'information ou à des documents aux termes du paragraphe (3), l'appelant peut demander au comité d'appel d'en ordonner l'accès.
Conditions
(5) Si le comité d'appel ordonne que l'accès soit donné à de l'information ou à des documents en vertu du paragraphe (4), cet accès est assujetti, avant et pendant l'audition, aux conditions que le comité d'appel estime nécessaires pour prévenir les situations décrites aux alinéas (3)a) à c).
Utilisation
(6) L'information ou les documents obtenus en vertu du présent article ne peuvent être utilisés que pour les besoins de l'appel.
Allégations par écrit
27. (1) Les allégations que l'appelant envoie à l'administrateur général en cause sont remises par écrit et sont suffisamment détaillées pour que celui-ci puisse y répondre.
Présentation orale
(2) Malgré le paragraphe (1), les allégations peuvent, dans des circonstances exceptionnelles et avec le consentement du comité d'appel, être présentées oralement.
Allégations nouvelles ou modifiées
(3) L'appelant ne peut modifier ses allégations ou en déposer de nouvelles que par suite d'une information obtenue après la divulgation complète et à laquelle il
Request adjournment
(4) The appellant or deputy head concerned may request that the appeal board adjourn the appeal hearing if they have been prejudiced by the submission by the other party of documents, information or allegations that, for reasons beyond the party's control, could not be disclosed within the period referred to in subsection 25(3).
ne pouvait raisonnablement avoir accès lors de la divulgation.
Demande d'ajournement
(4) L'appelant ou l'administrateur général en cause peut demander au comité d'appel d'ajourner l'audition s'il a subi un préjudice du fait que l'autre partie a produit des documents, de l'information ou des allégations qu'elle n'a pu divulguer dans le délai visé au paragraphe 25(3) pour des motifs indépendants de sa volonté.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1173-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: Heather Martin
v.
The Attorney General of Canada and Roberta Mayfield
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: May 28, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER OF: The Honourable Mr. Justice Kelen
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Jacquie de Aguayo FOR APPLICANT
Ms. Marie Crowley FOR RESPONDENTS
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Public Service Alliance of Canada FOR APPLICANT
Collective Bargaining Branch
Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENTS
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20030613
Docket: T-1173-02
BETWEEN:
HEATHER MARTIN
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and
ROBERTA MAYFIELD
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER