Levac v. Canada (Procureur général) et al., (1994) 170 N.R. 230 (FCA)

• Judge: Desjardins, Décary and Létourneau, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: May 02, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1994), 170 N.R. 230 (FCA)

Levac v. Can. (P.g.) (1994), 170 N.R. 230 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Dans l'affaire de Mme Gisèle Pépin, appelante, à l'encontre des nominations proposées à la suite du concours interne 90-MOT-AQ-CC-270, à un poste d'agent, licences du personnel, PM-02, Ministère des Transports, Dorval (Québec); (Dossier no 91-MOT-0975) devant Mme Lucie Baillargé, présidente du comité d'appel et Mme Carolle Forget, intervenante

Madame Chantal Levac (requérante) c. La Procureure générale du Canada; Mme Gisèle Pépin et Mme Carolle Forget (intimées)

(A-46-92)

Indexed As: Levac v. Canada (Procureur général) et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Desjardins, Décary and Létourneau, JJ.A.

May 2, 1994.

Summary:

Following a closed competition, Levac was declared to be the only qualified candidate. Her name was placed on an eligibility list. Forget, an unsuccessful candidate, appealed the proposed appointment of Levac. The Appeal Board allowed the appeal on the ground that the merit principle had not been respected. Following a fresh evaluation of candidates, both Levac and Forget were placed on a new eligibility list. Pépin, an unsuccessful candidate, appealed against the proposed appointments. The second Appeal Board allowed Pépin's appeal. Levac applied for judicial review of the second Appeal Board's decision.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application.

Labour Law - Topic 9193

Public service labour relations - Job com­petitions - Appeals - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that "when an appeal under section 21 of the [Public Service Employ­ment] Act is allowed by the Appeal Board, the results of the competition no longer stand and the Public Service Commission ... has no choice but to revoke the ap­pointment, if it has been made, or not to make the appointment, if it has not yet been made" - See paragraph 7.

Labour Law - Topic 9193.1

Public service labour relations - Job com­petitions - Appeals - Jurisdiction of appeal board - Following a closed compe­tition, Levac was declared the only qual­ified candidate - Forget appealed - The appeal was allowed on the ground that the merit principle had not been respected - Following corrective measures to the se­lection process, candidates were reevalu­ated - Both Levac and Forget were placed on a new eligibility list - Pépin appealed against Forget's appointment, claiming that Forget was given an unfair advantage because she obtained additional points through her temporary occupation of the position - The appeal board allowed Pépin's appeal and set aside the results of the competition - Levac sought judicial review - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed that the appeal board correctly invalidated the entire process.

Labour Law - Topic 9203

Public service labour relations - Job com­petitions - Merit principle - Forget, an unsuccessful candidate in a closed compe­tition, appealed the successful candidate's selection - Forget's appeal was allowed on the basis that the merit principle was not respected - Following corrective measures to the selection process, candidates were reevaluated - Forget's name was included on the eligibility list - Pépin, an unsuc­cessful candidate, appealed - Pépin's appeal was allowed on the basis that the merit principle was violated, where Forget obtained additional marks because of work performed on an acting basis - The Feder­al Court of Appeal affirmed that the merit principle was compromised by the unfair advantage Forget was given through her occupation of the position on an acting basis - See paragraphs 9 to 12.

Cases Noticed:

Charest v. Canada (Attorney General), [1973] F.C. 1217; 2 N.R. 288 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Shannon v. Canada (Attorney General), [1993] 1 F.C. 331; 151 N.R. 45 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Noel v. Ministre de l'Emploi et de l'Im­migration (1991), 136 N.R. 398 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Pearce, [1989] 3 F.C. 272; 99 N.R. 338 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 28 [para. 5].

Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-33, sect. 21 [para. 2].

Counsel:

Jean-François Longpré, for the applicant;

Richard Morneau, for the respondent At­torney General of Canada;

Richard Cardinal, for the respondent Carolle Forget.

Solicitors of Record:

Deveau, Majeau & Longpré, Laval, Québec, for the applicant;

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

Monaco & Associés, St-Léonard, Quebec, for the respondent Carolle Forget.

This application was heard on May 2, 1994, at Montreal, Quebec, before Desjardins, Décary and Létourneau, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. On May 2, 1994, Décary, J.A., delivered the following judg­ment orally for the court.