Cyr et al. v. Canada (Procureur général), (2000) 201 F.T.R. 191 (TD)

• Judge: Tremblay-Lamer, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 15, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2000), 201 F.T.R. 191 (TD)

Cyr v. Can. (P.g.) (2000), 201 F.T.R. 191 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] F.T.R. TBEd. DE.003

Sylvie Cyr et Suzanne Godin (demanderesses) v. Le Procureur général du Canada (défendeur)

(T-1458-99)

Indexed As: Cyr et al. v. Canada (Procureur général)

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Tremblay-Lamer, J.

November 24, 2000.

Summary:

The applicants were unsuccessful candidates in a competition. The applicants applied to appeal the proposed appointments after the eligibility lists were published on the basis that the surrounding conditions (noise and heat) in which they had their interviews were prejudicial and accordingly the merit principle had not been observed. The chairperson of the Appeal Board dismissed the appeals. The applicants applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application.

Labour Law - Topic 9261

Public service labour relations - Job selection with job competition - Selection process - Appeals - The applicants were unsuccessful candidates in a competition - The applicants applied to appeal the proposed appointments after the eligibility lists were published on the basis that the surrounding conditions (noise and heat) in which they had their interviews were prejudicial and accordingly the merit principle had not been observed - The chairperson of the Appeal Board dismissed the appeals because the applicants should have made their complaints to the selection board at the interviews - The chairperson stated that as there were no specific complaints, the board made no decision on the point and the chairperson could not make a decision in its place - The applicants applied for judicial review - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application - The applicants should have complained about the heat and the noise to the selection board.

Cases Noticed:

Charest v. Canada (Attorney General), [1973] F.C. 1217; 2 N.R. 288 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote 3].

Blagdon v. Canada (Public Service Commission Appeal Board), [1976] 1 F.C. 615 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 4].

Boucher et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) ( 1998), 157 F.T.R. 79 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 5].

Counsel:

James Cameron, for the applicants;

Claude Morisette, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Raven, Allen, Cameron & Ballantyne, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicants;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on November 15, 2000, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Tremblay-Lamer, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on November 24, 2000.