Kadouri v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FC 522

• Judge: de Montigny, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 04, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2005 FC 522;(2005), 295 F.T.R. 63 (FC)

Kadouri v. Can. (A.G.) (2005), 295 F.T.R. 63 (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: [2005] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.041

Bouchra Kadouri (demanderesse) v. Le Procureur général du Canada (défendeur)

(T-1522-03; 2005 CF 522; 2005 FC 522)

Indexed As: Kadouri v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

de Montigny, J.

April 19, 2005.

Summary:

A Public Service Commission Appeal Board concluded that the proposed appointments to two public service positions were in compliance with the merit principle. An unsuccessful candidate for the positions applied for judicial review of the Appeal Board's decision.

The Federal Court allowed the application.

Labour Law - Topic 9203

Public service labour relations - Job selection - General - Merit principle - In two job competitions, the selection board tested the candidates' "ability to use a computer keyboard to produce a written document" - The keyboards used by the candidates were not identical; some had a French configuration and others had an English configuration - Kadouri failed the test and was not a successful candidate - She appealed - A Public Service Commission Appeal Board concluded that the merit principle had been observed - The Board found that the candidates had been treated equally given the fact that mistakes related to keyboard configuration were not taken into account when the test was graded - Further, the Board concluded that it was up to Kadouri to complain about her keyboard as quickly as possible and that she did not complain until the eligibility lists were published - Kadouri applied for judicial review - The Federal Court allowed the application - Kadouri had actually complained about the keyboards over a month before the eligibility lists were published and the court could not conclude that she did not complain in due time - The Appeal Board also erred in finding that the merit principle had been observed - It was not reasonable to conclude that candidates had an equal chance when some of them had to use a keyboard with which they were not familiar.

Labour Law - Topic 9323

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - Decisions of board or commission - Standard of review - A Public Service Commission Appeal Board concluded that the proposed appointments to two positions were in compliance with the merit principle - An unsuccessful candidate for the positions applied for judicial review of the Appeal Board's decision - The Federal Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach and concluded that the standard of review was reasonableness simpliciter - See paragraphs 17 to 24.

Cases Noticed:

Cyr et al. v. Canada (Procureur général) (2000), 201 F.T.R. 191 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 15].

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170, refd to. [para. 19].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207, refd to. [para. 19].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 122; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 19].

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. 19].

Boucher et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2000), 252 N.R. 186 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Charest v. Canada (Attorney General), [1973] F.C. 1217 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Counsel:

James Cameron, for the applicant;

Marie Crowley, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

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

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

This application was heard on April 4, 2005, at Ottawa, Ontario, before de Montigny, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on April 19, 2005.