Leckie et al. v. Canada, (1993) 151 N.R. 377 (FCA)

• Judge: Décary, Heald and Robertson, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: April 08, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1993), 151 N.R. 377 (FCA)

Leckie v. Can. (1993), 151 N.R. 377 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter of an application to review and set aside, pursuant to section 28 of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7;

And In The Matter of a decision of an Appeal Board of the Public Service Commission rendered by I.V. Gendron, on the 17th of December, 1991 respecting an appeal under section 21 of the Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-33

(P.S.C. File No. 91-EMR-0349X to 91-EMR-0360X and 91-EMR-0675X).

Dr. Dale Leckie, Dr. Arthur R. Sweet and Dr. Tomas Jerzykiewicz (applicants) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(A-1299-91)

Indexed As: Leckie et al. v. Canada

Federal Court of Appeal

Décary, Heald and Robertson, JJ.A.

April 8, 1993.

Summary:

Three scientists appealed under s. 21 of the Public Service Employment Act the appoint­ments of 13 other research scientists at the SE-RES-3 level. The issue was whether the imposition of numerical quotas on promo­tions of holders of incumbent-oriented positions offended the merit principle. The Public Service Commission Appeal Board dismissed the appeal. The scientists applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application. The court stated that where Treasury Board made a managerial decision not to authorize funds needed for a promo­tion (quota), there could be no promotion, no application of the merit principle and no appeal to the Appeal Board.

Labour Law - Topic 9604

Public service labour relations - Collective agreement - Job classification - Merit principle - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that quotas for incumbent-oriented positions did not offend the merit principle in s. 10 of the Public Service Employment Act - The holder of an incumbent-oriented position has no vested right to promotion to a higher level upon meeting the criteria for that level - The merit principle means that when there was an opportunity for a promotion, the most meritorious person should be promoted - If Treasury Board has not authorized funds needed for a promotion, there can be no promotion and the merit principle does not apply - The imposition of quotas is a managerial decision having nothing to do with the merit principle and may affect incumbent-oriented positions as well as position-driven ones.

Cases Noticed:

Brown et al. v. Pubic Service Commission, [1975] F.C. 345; 9 N.R. 493; 60 D.L.R.(3d) 311 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Shannon v. Canada (Attorney General) (1992), 151 N.R. 45 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Charest v. Canada (Attorney General), [1973] F.C. 1217; 2 N.R. 288 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Greaves, McNeill, Morris and Waddy, [1982] 1 F.C. 806; 40 N.R. 429 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Nanda v. Public Service Commission, [1972] F.C. 277; 34 D.L.R.(3d) 51 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 28 [para. 7].

Financial Administration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11, sect. 7, sect. 10 [para. 11].

Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-33, sect. 10 [para. 8, footnote 2]; sect. 21 [para. 6, footnote 1].

Counsel:

Steven Waller, for the applicants;

Dogan Akman, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Nelligan Power, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicants;

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

This application was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on April 1, 1993, before Décary, Heald and Robertson, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

On April 8, 1993, Décary, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.