Canada (Procureur général) v. Racicot, (1997) 136 F.T.R. 111 (TD)

JudgeRichard, J.
CourtFederal Court (Canada)
Case DateJune 11, 1997
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1997), 136 F.T.R. 111 (TD)

Can. (P.g.) v. Racicot (1997), 136 F.T.R. 111 (TD)

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: [1997] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.005

Dans L'Affaire d'une demande de contrôle judiciaire déposée en vertu des articles 18 et 18.1 de la Loi sur la Cour fédérale, S.R.C. 1985, c. F-7;

Et Dans L'Affaire de la décision d'une comité d'appel institué en vertu de l'article 31 de la Loi sur l'emploi dans la fonction publique rendue par M. Pierre Baillie, président d'un comité d'appel, le 17 juin 1993, relativement à l'appel logé par M. Jules Racicot en vertu de l'article 31 de la Loi sur l'emploi dans la fonction publique, S.R.C. 1985, c. P-33 (Dossier de Direction des appels numéro 93-DND-0304-R).

Le Procureur général du Canada (requérant) v. Jules Racicot (intimé)

(T-1694-93)

Indexed As: Canada (Procureur général) v. Racicot

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Richard, J.

June 17, 1997.

Summary:

A public service employee's superiors concluded that he was incapable of performing his duties due to illness and recommended to the Public Service Commission that he be released (Public Service Employment Act, s. 31). The chairman of a public service appeal board allowed the employee's appeal. The Crown applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the application, set aside the chairman's decision and referred the matter back to an appeal board to be decided on the basis of the record having regard to the court's reasons for decision.

Civil Rights - Topic 989

Discrimination - Employment - On basis of physical or mental handicap - Section 31 of the Public Service Employment Act empowered deputy heads of public service departments to recommend to the Public Service Commission an employee's release or demotion for reasons of incapacity or incompetence - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, noted that s. 31 was a case of direct discrimination, but that it contained a bona fide occupational requirement which was consistent with s. 15(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act - See paragraph 20.

Civil Rights - Topic 989

Discrimination - Employment - On basis of physical or mental handicap - A recommendation was made that a public servant be released on the basis that he was physically unable to perform the duties of his position due to illness - An appeal board set up under s. 31 of the Public Service Employment Act held that he was incapable of performing his duties, but applied the Canadian Human Rights Act and allowed the appeal - The Crown appealed - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the appeal board's jurisdiction was limited to that conferred on it by Parliament - Parliament did not empower the board to apply the Canadian Human Rights Act - Accordingly, the board erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction by applying the Canadian Human Rights Act, particularly where it acknowledged that the employee was incapable of performing his duties.

Civil Rights - Topic 998

Discrimination - Employment - Exceptions - Bona fide or reasonable occupational requirement or qualification - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 989 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7004

Federal or provincial legislation - Application of legislation - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 989 ].

Cases Noticed:

MacNeill v. Canada (Attorney General), [1993] 3 F.C. 575; 64 F.T.R. 41; 93 C.L.L.C. 17,021 (T.D.), revd. [1994] 3 F.C. 261; 169 N.R. 368 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 3].

MacNeill v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 3 F.C. 261; 169 N.R. 368 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1995), 185 N.R. 157 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 11, footnote 5].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Viola et al., [1991] 1 F.C. 373; 123 N.R. 83 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 9].

Ahmad v. Public Service Commission Appeal Board (Can.), [1974] 2 F.C. 644; 6 N.R. 287 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 11].

Statutes Noticed:

Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-33, sect. 31 [para. 7, footnote 2].

Counsel:

Rosemarie Millar, for the applicant;

James Cameron, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

George Thomson, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

Raven, Jewitt & Allen, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on June 11, 1997, at Ottawa, Ontario, by Richard, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on June 17, 1997.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Canada (Attorney General) v. Girouard et al., (2002) 291 N.R. 289 (FCA)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • May 29, 2002
    ...et al. v. Canadian Human Rights Commission (1987), 125 N.R. 239 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11]. Canada (Procureur général) v. Racicot (1997), 136 F.T.R. 111 (T.D.), refd to. [para. Charest v. Canada (Attorney General), [1973] F.C. 1217 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12]. Blagdon v. Public Service C......
2 cases
  • Canada (Procureur général) c. Girouard (C.A.),
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • May 29, 2002
    ...APPLIQUÉES: Burke v. Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) (1987), 125 N.R. 239 (F.C.A.); Canada attorney Général) v. Racicot (1997), 136 F.T.R. 111 Charest v. Attorney General of Canada, [1973] F.C. 1217; (1973), 2 N.R. 288 (C.A.); Blagdon v. Public Service Commission, [1976] 1 F.C. 61......
  • Canada (Attorney General) v. Girouard et al., (2002) 291 N.R. 289 (FCA)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • May 29, 2002
    ...et al. v. Canadian Human Rights Commission (1987), 125 N.R. 239 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11]. Canada (Procureur général) v. Racicot (1997), 136 F.T.R. 111 (T.D.), refd to. [para. Charest v. Canada (Attorney General), [1973] F.C. 1217 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12]. Blagdon v. Public Service C......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT