Oriji v. Canada (Attorney General), (2004) 252 F.T.R. 95 (FC)

• Judge: Mosley, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 26, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2004), 252 F.T.R. 95 (FC);2004 FC 666

Oriji v. Can. (A.G.) (2004), 252 F.T.R. 95 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.045

Hensley Oriji (applicant) v. The Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-1432-03; 2004 FC 666)

Indexed As: Oriji v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

Mosley, J.

May 6, 2004.

Summary:

Oriji submitted that he was verbally offered a Public Service Commission position subject only to passing a language test. Before taking the test, the position was given to a "surplus employee" under a priority staffing action. Oriji filed a complaint respecting rescission of a verbal employment offer. An investigator appointed under the Public Service Employment Act rejected the complaint. The investigator found that (1) no employment offer had been made; (2) the other person was not entitled to a priority employment because she did not meet the definition of "surplus employee"; and (3) the other person was properly appointed under the merit principle. Oriji applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application. The investigator's finding that Oriji was not offered employment was reasonable. His finding that the other person was not a "surplus employee" entitled to priority appointment was correct. The finding that the other person was entitled under the Act and Regulations to be appointed in an acting capacity under the "merit principle" was also correct.

Labour Law - Topic 9204

Public service labour relations - Job selection - General - Acting assignments - [See Labour Law - Topic 9306 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9262

Public service labour relations - Job selection with job competition - Selection process - Eligibility lists - [See Labour Law - Topic 9306 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9306

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - General - Decisions of investigators - Oriji submitted that he was offered a civil service position subject to, inter alia, passing language tests - No eligibility list was created - Before taking the test, the position was given to a "surplus employee" under a priority staffing action - Oriji filed a complaint that a verbal offer of employment was made and rescinded - An investigator rejected the complaint, finding that (1) no employment offer had been made (no eligibility list created, person who purportedly offered employment testified she had not done so and she had no authority to do so); (2) the other person was not entitled to a priority employment because she did not meet the definition of "surplus employee"; and (3) the other person was properly appointed under the Public Service Employment Act and Regulations under the merit principle - The Federal Court dismissed Oriji's judicial review application - The investigator's finding that Oriji was not offered employment was reasonable - His finding that the other person was not a "surplus employee" entitled to priority appointment was correct - The finding that the other person was entitled under the Act and Regulations to be appointed in an acting capacity under the "merit principle" was also correct.

Cases Noticed:

Oriji v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 2 F.C. 423; 228 F.T.R. 73 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 2].

Adams v. Canada (Attorney General) (2002), 216 F.T.R. 190 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].

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. 20].

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. 20].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 20].

Bambrough v. Public Service Commission Appeal Board, [1976] 2 F.C. 109; 12 N.R. 553 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Buttar v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2000), 254 N.R. 368 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Evans v. Public Service Commission Appeal Board, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 582; 47 N.R. 255, refd to. [para. 33].

Panagopoulos v. Canada, [1990] F.C.J. No. 234 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 40].

Boucher et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2000), 252 N.R. 186 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

Sharpe v. Canada (Attorney General), [1983] 1 F.C. 292; 43 N.R. 433 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Caron, Renée, Employment in the Federal Public Service (2003), pp. 2-82, 2-83 [para. 36]; 6-70 [para. 22].

Counsel:

Hensley Oriji, on his own behalf;

Tatiana Sandler, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

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

This application was heard on April 26, 2004, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Mosley, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment on May 6, 2004.