Laplante et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., 2004 FCA 39

• Judge: Richard, C.J., Décary and Noël, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: January 27, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2004 FCA 39;(2004), 318 N.R. 304 (FCA)

Laplante v. Can. (A.G.) (2004), 318 N.R. 304 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] N.R. TBEd. FE.019

Nada Laplante, Wajid Hussain and Catherine Dubreuil-Mellon (appellants) v. Attorney General of Canada, Bruce Weir, Veronica Parker-Wright, Rose Spirito, Fred Pregl, Brenda Singreil, Patrick Warner, Steve Robertson, Geoffrey Larose, Nathalie Belleu, Janice MacDonald, Kevin Yamamoto, Robert Begin, Patricia Seabrook, Audrey Mantha, Gerard Levesque, John Robertson, Arlene Richardson, Lesley Martin, Sheila Fullbrook and Geoffry Chapman (respondents)

(A-291-03; 2004 FCA 39)

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

Federal Court of Appeal

Richard, C.J., Décary and Noël, JJ.A.

January 27, 2004.

Summary:

The applicants were unsuccessful candi­dates in a competition held by the Depart­ment of Public Works and Government Ser­vices. They appealed from the selections for appointment pursuant to s. 21(1) of the Pub­lic Service Employment Act. At the hearing before the Chairperson of the Public Service Commission Appeal Board, the Department in­dicated that it wished to con­cede the ap­peals because the merit principle had been undermined. In an interlocutory ruling dated October 18, 2001, the Chairperson denied the Depart­ment's request to concede the ap­peals. The Appeal Board continued its hear­ings and dismissed the appeals on Janu­ary 21, 2002. No applica­tion for judicial review of that decision had been brought. The appli­cants applied for judicial review of the Chair­per­son's October 18, 2001 decision re­fusing to concede the appeals.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported at 234 F.T.R. 143, dismissed the application. The appli­cants appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal quashed the ap­peal. Absent an attack by way of judicial re­view, the Appeal Board's decision of Jan­u­ary 21, 2002 was final and the court could not entertain the appeal in the circum­stances.

Courts - Topic 4103

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Fed­eral Court of Appeal - Appeals from interlocutory decisions of boards - The applicants were unsuccessful candidates in a competition held by the Department of Pub­lic Works and Government Services - They appealed from the selections for appointment pursuant to s. 21(1) of the Public Service Employment Act - At the hearing before the Chairperson of the Public Service Commission Appeal Board, the Department indicated that it wished to concede the appeals because the merit prin­ciple had been undermined - In an inter­locutory ruling dated October 18, 2001, the Chairperson denied the Depart­ment's re­quest to concede the appeals - The Appeal Board continued its hearings and dismissed the appeals on January 21, 2002 - No ap­pli­­cation for judicial review of that de­cision had been brought - The applicants applied for judicial review of the Chairper­son's October 18, 2001 deci­sion refusing to concede the appeals - The application was dismissed - The applicants appealed - The Federal Court of Appeal quashed the appeal - Absent an attack by way of judi­cial review, the Appeal Board's decision of January 21, 2002 was final and the court could not entertain the appeal in the cir­cumstances.

Counsel:

Dougald Brown, for the appellants;

J. Sanderson Graham and Ramona Roths­child, for the respondent, Attorney Gen­eral of Canada;

Bruce Weir, on his own behalf;

John P.S. Westdal, for the respondent, Rose Spirito;

Patrick Warner, on his own behalf.

Solicitors of Record:

Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellants;

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

Sevigny Law Office, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, Rose Spirito.

This matter was heard on January 27, 2004, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Richard, C.J., and Décary and Noël, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The following de­ci­sion of the Court of Appeal was delivered orally by Richard, C.J., on the same date.