Agnaou v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 FC 523

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: St-Louis, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Citation: 2015 FC 523,(2015), 479 F.T.R. 304 (FC)
• Date: 12 November 2014

Agnaou v. Can. (A.G.) (2015), 479 F.T.R. 304 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.009

Yacine Agnaou (demandeur) v. Procureur général du Canada (défendeur)

(T-825-13; 2015 CF 523; 2015 FC 523)

Indexed As: Agnaou v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

St-Louis, J.

April 22, 2015.

Summary:

Agnaou had a priority entitlement pursuant to s. 41 of the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA). He filed a complaint with the Public Service Employment Commission, alleging that the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada had breached his priority entitlement regarding an external appointment process. The investigation report concluded that Agnaou's priority entitlement had been breached. The proposed corrective action was that the managers take a workforce adjustment directive course. The Commission accepted the investigation report and ordered the proposed corrective action, pursuant to s. 66 of the PSEA. Agnaou applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court allowed the application with costs against the Attorney General of Canada. The Commission's order was unreasonable. The remedy imposed bore no relation to the breach of Agnaou's priority entitlement. "The Commission must take corrective action that has a logical connection to the breach found in its Investigation Report and provide Mr. Agnaou with some sort of meaningful remedy." The matter was referred back to the Commission for redetermination of the corrective action to be taken.

Crown - Topic 5121

Officials and employees - Appointment and employment - General - [See Labour Law - Topic 9193.3 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9002

Public service labour relations - Authority of Commission or Commissioners - [See Labour Law - Topic 9193.3 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9071

Public service labour relations - Remedies - General - [See Labour Law - Topic 9193.3 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9193.3

Public service labour relations - Job competitions - General - Appointments - Complaints and investigations - The applicant filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that his priority entitlement had been breached - The investigation was conducted pursuant to the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), s. 66 (external appointments) - The Public Service Commission found that the applicant's priority candidacy was not assessed - Section 66(b) granted the Commission the discretion to "take any corrective action that it considers appropriate" - The Commission provided no remedy to the applicant, but limited the corrective action to an order directing the managers to take a workforce adjustment directive course - The Federal Court allowed the judicial review application - The Commission's order was not reasonable - "Although corrective action taken by the Commission is reviewable on a standard of reasonableness, this does not mean that the Commission has unlimited discretion in that regard. Corrective action taken by the Commission must respect the spirit of the preamble of the PSEA, namely, the safeguarding of the principle of merit and of the integrity of the public service appointment process. Achieving such an objective requires that corrective action be taken to remedy errors made, such as in this case, that affected the appointment process in that a priority candidacy was not assessed. A decision with respect to corrective action would be found to be unreasonable where the remedy imposed bore no relation to the breach found" - See paragraphs 52 to 58.

Labour Law - Topic 9261.1

Public service labour relations - Job selection with job competition - Selection process - Remedies - [See Labour Law - Topic 9193.3 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9261.1

Public service labour relations - Job selection with job competition - Selection process - Remedies - The investigation in this case was conducted pursuant to s. 66 of the Public Service Employment Act (external appointments) - The Public Service Commission found that the applicant had been deprived of his priority entitlement - The Commission provided no remedy to the applicant, but limited the corrective action to an order directing the managers to take training - The Federal Court referred the matter back to the Commission in order for it to take corrective action that had a logical connection to the breach found in its investigation report - It was not possible to grant the applicant's request to order a directed verdict, as the authority to revoke an appointment fell within the Commission's discretion - In addition, a directed verdict would not be appropriate, given that the applicant's candidacy had not been assessed - See paragraph 57.

Labour Law - Topic 9327

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - Decisions of board or commission - Unreasonable decisions - [See Labour Law - Topic 9193.3 ].

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 26].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2009), 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 27].

Seck v. Canada (Attorney General) (2012), 454 N.R. 301; 2012 FCA 314, refd to. [para. 27].

MacAdam v. Canada (Attorney General) (2014), 454 F.T.R. 214; 2014 FC 443, refd to. [para. 28].

Royal Oak Mines Inc. v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 369; 193 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 53].

Plato v. Canada Revenue Agency, [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 159; 2013 FC 348, refd to. [para. 54].

Backx v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency et al. (2013), 427 F.T.R. 148; 2013 FC 139, refd to. [para. 56].

Statutes Noticed:

Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, sect. 41 [para. 4]; sect. 66 [para. 28].

Counsel:

Yacine Agnaou, applicant, on his own behalf;

Agnieszka Zagorska, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Montreal, Quebec, on November 12, 2014, before St-Louis, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment and reasons, dated April 22, 2015.