Date: 20000613
Docket: A-835-97
CORAM: ISAAC, J.A.
ROBERTSON, J.A.
SHARLOW, J.A.
| IN THE MATTER OF an application to review and set aside, pursuant to s. 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, C. f-7, as amended. |
| AND IN THE MATTER OF a decision of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, Board Member Rosemary Vondette Simpson, rendered May 19, 1995, respecting a grievance referred to adjudication pursuant to the Public Service Staff Relations Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-35 (PSSRB File Nos. 166-2-25992, 166-2-25993, 161-2-743) |
BETWEEN:
RUSSELL DEIGAN
Appellant
(Applicant)
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
(Industry Canada)
Respondent
(Respondent)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, B.C.
on June 13, 2000.)
ROBERTSON, J.A.
[1] This is an appeal from a decision of the Motions Judge dated November 12, 1997 in which she allowed, in part, the appellant"s application for judicial review from a decision of an adjudicator rendered under the Public Service Staff Relations Act .
[2] The appellant had been suspended from his employment on June 29, 1994 and discharged on July 29, 1994 because of his direct involvement in the preparation and anonymous dissemination of a series of letters concerning another public servant. The adjudicator held that in the circumstances the appellant"s discharge was too severe a penalty but that the respondent had just cause to suspend the appellant indefinitely with six months pay.
[3] The Motions Judge allowed the application but only to the extent that the matter be remitted to the same adjudicator to deal with one aspect of her decision which the Motions Judge held constituted a denial to a fair hearing. The denial arose from the adjudicator"s refusal to consider the appellant"s written submissions tendered at the closing of the hearing. The adjudicator did so because those submissions contained statements of fact not in evidence. The Motions Judge ruled that the adjudicator should have accepted the written submissions while ignoring any reference to facts for which no evidence had been adduced at the hearing. Accordingly, the matter was remitted to the same adjudicator for reconsideration having regard to those written submissions. The respondent has not cross-appealed this aspect of the Motions Judges" ruling and, therefore, we need not comment on the correctness of the order directing that the matter be remitted for reconsideration on this limited basis. At the same time, we do not accept the appellant"s argument that in so remitting the matter to the same adjudicator a reasonable apprehension of bias arises on her part and, therefore, the matter should have been remitted to a different adjudicator.
[4] We are also of the view that the Motions Judge did not err in otherwise dismissing the application for judicial review having regard to the applicable standard of review of an adjudicator"s decision rendered under the Act (patent unreasonableness). In our view, the issues raised by the appellant rest largely on adverse findings made by the adjudicator relating to the appellant"s credibility. This fact effectively disposes of the appellant"s arguments dealing with the truth or falsity of the statements contained in letters that he admittedly wrote.
[5] For these reasons, the appeal must be dismissed with costs.
(Sgd.) "J.T. Robertson"
J.A.