East v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (2001) 200 F.T.R. 215 (TD)

• Judge: Gibson, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 06, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2001), 200 F.T.R. 215 (TD)

East v. Can. (A.G.) (2001), 200 F.T.R. 215 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] F.T.R. TBEd. FE.126

Robin East (applicant) v. The Attorney General of Canada, Kim Mizinski and Stan Morin (respondents)

(T-276-00; 2001 FCT 41)

Indexed As: East v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Gibson, J.

February 9, 2001.

Summary:

East, an employee of Revenue Canada (RC), had a visual disability. In anticipation of future job competitions, East requested that RC provide him with a substantial quantity of documents, converted into an electronic format beneficial to him. The documents were not provided, nor was East notified by RC that his request was unreasonable. Approximately a year later, a competition opened and East was provided with suitable electronic versions of only those documents which were made available to the other candidates who requested study material. East was unsuccessful in the knowledge portion of the competition. An appeal board rejected his appeal against the appointment of the successful candidates. East applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application but refused to award costs to RC under the circumstances.

Administrative Law - Topic 3349

Judicial review - General - Practice - Costs - East, an employee of Revenue Canada (RC), had a visual disability - In anticipation of future job competitions, East requested that RC provide him with a substantial quantity of documents, converted into an electronic format beneficial to him - The documents were not provided, nor was East notified by RC that his request was unreasonable - When a competition opened, East was provided with electronic versions of only those documents which were made available to the other candidates - East was unsuccessful in the knowledge portion of the competition - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed his subsequent judicial review application, but refused to award costs to RC where it was not "in any sense blameless in this matter" - See paragraph 25.

Labour Law - Topic 9176

Public service labour relations - Job competitions - General - Duties of employer - East, an employee of Revenue Canada (RC), had a visual disability - In anticipation of future job competitions, East requested that RC provide him with a substantial quantity of documents, converted into an electronic format beneficial to him - The documents were not provided, nor was East notified by RC that his request was unreasonable - When a competition opened, East was provided with electronic versions of only those documents which were made available to the other candidates - East was unsuccessful in the knowledge portion of the competition - An appeal board rejected his appeal - East applied for judicial review - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application - By providing East with the same preparational materials provided to the other applicants, in the form requested by him, RC had fulfilled its duties under the merit principle - See paragraph 21.

Labour Law - Topic 9203

Public service labour relations - Job selection - General - Merit principle - [See Labour Law - Topic 9176 ].

Practice - Topic 7021

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitlement to - Successful party - Exceptions - Conduct - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3349 ].

Cases Noticed:

Charest v. Canada (Attorney General), [1973] F.C. 1217; 2 N.R. 288 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11, footnote 2].

Boucher et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2000), 252 N.R. 186 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote 3].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 16, footnote 4].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Rogerville (1996), 117 F.T.R. 43 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 5].

Schut v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] F.T.R. Uned. 327 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 6].

MacNeill v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 3 F.C. 261; 169 N.R. 368 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 8].

Statutes Noticed:

Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-33, sect. 10 [para. 7].

Counsel:

David Yazbeck, for the applicant;

J. Sanderson Graham, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

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

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

This application was heard on February 6, 2001, in Ottawa, Ontario, by Gibson, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on February 9, 2001.