Lee, Re, (1980) 31 N.R. 136 (FCA)

JudgeHeald and Le Dain, JJ. and Kerr, D.J.
CourtFederal Court of Appeal (Canada)
Case DateJanuary 14, 1980
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1980), 31 N.R. 136 (FCA)

Lee, Re (1980), 31 N.R. 136 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Re Lee Attorney General of Canada v. Murby, Butchart, and Lee (sitting as an Appeal Board) and Lee

(A-98-79)

Indexed As: Lee, Re

Federal Court of Appeal

Heald and Le Dain, JJ. and Kerr, D.J.

January 14, 1980.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Labour Law - Topic 9218

Public service labour relations - Job selection - Appeal of job selection to an appeal board, scope of appeal - Public Service Staff Relations Act, s. 112 - A public service employee entered a closed job competition and was placed first on an eligible list in order of merit - The employee was not appointed to the job because a qualification for the job was "top secret security clearance" which the employee was denied by the R.C.M.P. - The employee appealed to an appeal board appointed under s. 21 of the Public Service Employment Act - The appeal board allowed the employee's appeal on the ground that the denial of security clearance to the employee was not justified - The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the appeal board on the ground that s. 112 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act precluded the appeal board from considering or inquiring into a security clearance job qualification.

Cases Noticed:

Brown v. Public Service Commission, 9 N.R. 493; [1975] F.C. 345, refd to. [para. 7].

Statutes Noticed:

Public Service Staff Relations Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. P-35, sect. 112 [para. 11].

Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. P-32, sect. 10.

Authors and Works Noticed:

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd Ed. [para. 26].

Counsel:

W.J.A. Hobson, Q.C., for the applicant;

No one appearing for respondents P. Murby, L. Butchart and J.D. Lee;

M.W. Wright, Q.C., for the respondent R. Lee.

This appeal was heard by HEALD and LE DAIN, JJ. and KERR, D.J. of the Federal Court of Appeal at Ottawa, Ontario on November 20, 1979.

The judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal was delivered on January 14, 1980 and the following opinions were filed:

HEALD, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 19.

LE DAIN, J. - see paragraphs 20 to 24.

KERR, D.J. - see paragraphs 25 to 29.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Thomson v. Canada (Minister of Agriculture), (1992) 133 N.R. 345 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 13 Febrero 1992
    ...27. Cases Noticed: Lee v. Attorney General of Canada, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 90; 38 N.R. 346, refd to. [para. 12]. Lee, Re, [1981] 1 F.C. 713; 31 N.R. 136 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12]. Attorney General of Canada v. Murby - see Lee, Re. Multiform Manufacturing Co. Ltd. et al. v. R. et al., [1990] ......
  • Lee v. Attorney General of Canada, (1981) 38 N.R. 346 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 6 Octubre 1981
    ...on the ground that the denial of security clearance to the employee was not justified. The Federal Court of Appeal in a judgment reported 31 N.R. 136 set aside the decision of the Appeal Board on the ground that the requirement of security clearance could not be evaluated or assessed by sel......
2 cases
  • Thomson v. Canada (Minister of Agriculture), (1992) 133 N.R. 345 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 13 Febrero 1992
    ...27. Cases Noticed: Lee v. Attorney General of Canada, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 90; 38 N.R. 346, refd to. [para. 12]. Lee, Re, [1981] 1 F.C. 713; 31 N.R. 136 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12]. Attorney General of Canada v. Murby - see Lee, Re. Multiform Manufacturing Co. Ltd. et al. v. R. et al., [1990] ......
  • Lee v. Attorney General of Canada, (1981) 38 N.R. 346 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 6 Octubre 1981
    ...on the ground that the denial of security clearance to the employee was not justified. The Federal Court of Appeal in a judgment reported 31 N.R. 136 set aside the decision of the Appeal Board on the ground that the requirement of security clearance could not be evaluated or assessed by sel......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT