Canada (Attorney General) v. Pépin, (2006) 298 F.T.R. 46 (FC)

• Judge: de Montigny, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 22, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2006), 298 F.T.R. 46 (FC);2006 FC 950

Can. (A.G.) v. Pépin (2006), 298 F.T.R. 46 (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: [2006] F.T.R. TBEd. AU.027

Le Procureur général du Canada (demandeur) v. Michel Pépin (défendeur)

(T-1272-05; 2006 CF 950; 2006 FC 950)

Indexed As: Canada (Attorney General) v. Pépin

Federal Court

de Montigny, J.

August 3, 2006.

Summary:

Pépin was an unsuccessful candidate in a job competition for a position in the Department of Justice. An appeal board established by the Public Service Commission under the Public Service Employment Act allowed Pépin's appeal and concluded that the tools used by the selection board did not allow for the complete assessment of one of the knowledge requirements under the statement of qualifications. The Attorney General applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 3202

Judicial review - General - Scope or standard of review - The Federal Court stated that it had been definitively settled that "a respondent in an application for judicial review may raise certain arguments to counter reasons that were unfavourable to him or her in the decision challenged by the applicant. As long as the respondent is not seeking a different disposition, there is no need for the respondent to bring his or her own application for judicial review." - See paragraph 29.

Administrative Law - Topic 5029

Judicial review - Certiorari - Grounds for granting certiorari - Right of respondent to raise new grounds - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3202 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 9103

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Scope of review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3202 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9203

Public service labour relations - Job selection - General - Merit principle - The applicant was an unsuccessful candidate in a job competition for a position in the Department of Justice - The applicant appealed - An appeal board established by the Public Service Commission under the Public Service Employment Act allowed his appeal and concluded that the tools used by the selection board did not allow for the complete assessment of one of the knowledge requirements under the statement of qualifications - The applicant sought judicial review, arguing, inter alia, that the board erred in its evaluation of the assessment tools with regard to the statement of qualifications - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The board's conclusion was not unreasonable - See paragraphs 31 to 36.

Labour Law - Topic 9353

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - Decisions of adjudicators, arbitrators or grievance appeal boards - Scope of review (incl. standard) - Pépin was an unsuccessful candidate in a job competition for a position in the Department of Justice - An appeal board established by the Public Service Commission under the Public Service Employment Act allowed Pépin's appeal and concluded that the tools used by the selection board did not allow for the complete assessment of one of the knowledge requirements under the statement of qualifications - The Attorney General sought judicial review - The Federal Court held that the applicable standard of review was reasonableness simpliciter, insofar as the impugned conclusions of the appeal board concerned questions of mixed law and fact (i.e., whether an appeal board erred in concluding whether or not a selection process respected the principle of merit) - See paragraphs 25 to 28.

Cases Noticed:

Tiefenbrunner v. Canada (Attorney General), [1992] F.C.J. No. 1021 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Madracki v. Canada (1986), 72 N.R. 257 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Nelson et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2001), 204 F.T.R. 287; 2001 FCT 437, refd to. [para. 13].

Nanda v. Public Service Commission, [1972] F.C. 277 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Davies v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2005), 330 N.R. 283; 2005 FCA 41, refd to. [para. 19].

Laberge v. Canada (Procureur général), [1988] 2 F.C. 137; 84 N.R. 393 (F.C.A.), folld. [para. 20].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Blashford et al., [1991] 2 F.C. 44; 120 N.R. 223 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Mercer et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2004), 327 N.R. 263; 2004 FCA 301, refd to. [para. 20].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Viola et al., [1991] 1 F.C. 373; 123 N.R. 83 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Chopra et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2005), 344 N.R. 143; 2005 FCA 374, refd to. [para. 27].

Kadouri v. Canada (Attorney General) (2005), 295 F.T.R. 63; 2005 FC 522, refd to. [para. 27].

GKO Engineering v. Canada (2001), 268 N.R. 383; 2001 FCA 73, refd to. [para. 29].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Rogerville (2001), 270 N.R. 260; 2001 FCA 142, refd to. [para. 30].

Counsel:

Alain Préfontaine, for the applicant;

Michel Pépin, on his own behalf.

Solicitors of Record:

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

This application was heard at Montreal, Quebec, on March 22, 2006, by de Montigny, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on August 3, 2006.