Beauchemin v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: de Montigny, J.
• Date: 15 January 2008
• Citation: 2008 FC 186,(2008), 364 F.T.R. 159 (FC)
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)

Beauchemin v. CFIA (2008), 364 F.T.R. 159 (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: [2010] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.014

Madame Colombe Beauchemin (demanderesse) v. Agence Canadienne d'Inspection des Aliments (défendeur)

(T-208-07; 2008 CF 186; 2008 FC 186)

Indexed As: Beauchemin v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency

Federal Court

de Montigny, J.

February 13, 2008.

Summary:

Beauchemin held a managerial position at the AS-04 level with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. In 2005, she filed a classification grievance requesting an AS-05 classification. The classification committee heard the applicant's submissions on October 6, 2006. Then the committee met again, in the absence of the applicant, to ask questions of two management representatives. The committee's recommendation that the grievance be dismissed was confirmed by the deputy head's delegated representative. Beauchemin applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 2266

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - What constitutes procedural fairness - [See second Labour Law - Topic 9353 , third and fourth Labour Law - Topic 9805 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9353

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - Decisions of adjudicators, arbitrators, grievance appeal boards or officers - Scope of review (incl. standard) - A deputy head's delegated representative confirmed a classification grievance committee's recommendation to dismiss the applicant's grievance - The Federal Court stated that, "'[t]o the extent that the issues raised in the present dispute consist in determining if the committee considered all of the evidence adduced and whether its assessment of this evidence was incorrect, the applicable standard of review is undeniably that of patent unreasonableness" - The Public Service Labour Relations Act contained a privative clause (s. 214) making decisions at the final grievance stage "final and binding" - Further, the committee's "highly specialized" functions and expertise in matters of classification, called for a high degree of deference - Also, the purpose of classification was to achieve a form of parity among the job assessments of a given employer - Finally, the type of issue that came before the committee was "eminently factual"- The standard called for a very high degree of deference and authorized the court to intervene only in cases where a decision was "clearly irrational" or "contrary to reason" - See paragraphs 18 to 23.

Labour Law - Topic 9353

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - Decisions of adjudicators, arbitrators, grievance appeal boards or officers - Scope of review (incl. standard) - A deputy head's delegated representative confirmed a classification grievance committee's recommendation to dismiss the applicant's grievance - The applicant argued that the committee breached the principles of procedural fairness - The Federal Court stated that it was up to the court "to define the extent of the obligation to act fairly in the circumstances of each case, and, in this regard, the administrative decision-maker does not have the right to err. That being said ... the obligation to act fairly will be more or less extensive depending on the nature of the interests affected by the decision and the nature of the procedure in question. In the context of a classification grievance resolution ... the degree of fairness required lies on the side of a 'lesser requirement' rather than that of a stricter standard. There will however always be inescapable obligations" - See paragraphs 24 and 25.

Labour Law - Topic 9801

Public service labour relations - Job classification - General - In the context of a classification grievance resolution, the Federal Court stated that "the purpose of classification is to achieve a form of parity among the job assessments of a given employer. It is a delicate balancing exercise that consists in reconciling various interests rather than establishing the rights of the parties. It can thus be said that the aim of the [Public Service Labour Relations] Act is polycentric, 'as it is intended to resolve questions involving contradictory policy objectives or the interests of different groups, and its purpose is not just to oppose the government to the individual.'" - See paragraph 21.

Labour Law - Topic 9805

Public service labour relations - Job classification - Appeals or grievances - The applicant was a pay and benefits manager with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, in the human resources division - She filed a classification grievance - A deputy head's delegated representative confirmed the classification grievance committee's recommendation to dismiss the grievance - On judicial review, the applicant submitted that the committee erred in not taking into account the only two comparable positions within the Agency, without providing an explanation with regard to one of them and giving as a pretext for the other that its job description was not up to date - The Federal Court held that the committee did not commit a patently unreasonable error - The two positions had nothing in common with human resources, and even less with compensation - Compensation managers' positions within other departments/agencies of the public service were more relevant for the purpose of assessing the applicant's position fairly - There was no legal obligation to set out every piece of evidence that led to the decision - The committee's decision was comprehensive and based on all of the documentation that was before it - See paragraphs 26 to 34.

Labour Law - Topic 9805

Public service labour relations - Job classification - Appeals or grievances - The applicant held a managerial position with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency - She filed a classification grievance - The classification committee heard her submissions - Then the committee met again, in the absence of the applicant, to ask questions of two management representatives - The committee's recommendation that the grievance be dismissed was confirmed by the deputy head's delegated representative - On judicial review, the applicant argued that the committee failed to follow the Classification Grievance Resolution Procedure, by meeting with two management representatives rather than only one and in preferring their opinions to her job description - The Federal Court held that the claim was unfounded - The choice of management representatives was the committee's - It was not unreasonable to obtain information from the person responsible for compensation at the national level - The initial classification committee had already consulted the applicant's immediate supervisor - The Procedure did not limit the number of management representatives who could be consulted by the committee - Further, the committee did not base itself solely on what the management representatives said - See paragraphs 35 to 41.

Labour Law - Topic 9805

Public service labour relations - Job classification - Appeals or grievances - The Federal Court stated that "the obligation to act fairly applies to the classification grievance resolution process. While this obligation lies on the 'lesser requirement side' considering the nature of this procedure, the person affected must at the very least have the right to put forth his or her point of view on any issue that might have an impact on the decision" - In this case, the court held that the applicant had "every opportunity" to make her representations - The grievance committee was aware that her immediate supervisor had confirmed to the initial interdepartmental committee that she provided advice to senior management - "Her position was known by the Committee, and it simply chose not to accept it. This could not constitute a breach of the principles of procedural fairness" - See paragraphs 42 and 43.

Labour Law - Topic 9805

Public service labour relations - Job classification - Appeals or grievances - The applicant held a managerial position at the AS-04 level with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency - She filed a classification grievance requesting an AS-05 classification - A deputy head's delegated representative confirmed a classification grievance committee's recommendation to dismiss the grievance - On judicial review, the applicant argued that the committee breached the principles of procedural fairness by consulting the Position and Classification Information System (PCIS) without informing her and without allowing her to submit reply evidence - The Federal Court rejected the argument - The PCIS was a reference tool available within the public service, giving a list of all positions at a given level - Even supposing that the applicant did not have access to it, the PCIS report was not new information presented by management - Moreover, the report only confirmed that in terms of relative value, several regional compensation manager positions were classified AS-04 - The committee could consider that the information was not sufficiently important for it to be necessary to inform the applicant thereof - See paragraphs 44 and 45.

Cases Noticed:

Adamidis et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board), [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 120; 2006 FC 243, refd to. [para. 18].

Laplante et al. v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2004), 263 F.T.R. 22; 2004 FC 1345, refd to. [para. 18].

Trépanier et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 259 F.T.R. 86; 2004 FC 1326, refd to. [para. 18].

Utovac v. Canada (Treasury Board) (2006), 293 F.T.R. 296; 2006 FC 643, refd to. [para. 18].

Lapointe et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board) (2004), 247 F.T.R. 243; 2004 FC 244, refd to. [para. 18].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 941; 150 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 23].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 23].

Chong et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1995), 104 F.T.R. 253 (F.C.), revd. (1999), 236 N.R. 371 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Hale v. Canada (Treasury Board), [1996] 3 F.C. 3; 112 F.T.R. 216 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 25].

Jarvis et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board) (2004), 259 F.T.R. 1; 2004 FC 300, refd to. [para. 29].

Bulat v. Canada (Treasury Board) (2000), 252 N.R. 182 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Counsel:

Jean Bergeron, for the applicant;

Simon Kamel, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Trudel Nadeau, Montreal, Quebec, for the applicant;

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application for judicial review was heard at Montréal, Quebec, on January 15, 2008, by de Montigny, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment and judgment, dated February 13, 2008.