Pfahl et al. v. Canada, (1993) 71 F.T.R. 271 (TD)

• Judge: McGillis, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 09, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1993), 71 F.T.R. 271 (TD)

Pfahl v. Can. (1993), 71 F.T.R. 271 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Kathryn Pfahl, Sheila Summers, Bonnie Terzopoulos (plaintiffs) v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada (defendant)

(T-2971-89)

Indexed As: Pfahl et al. v. Canada

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

McGillis, J.

December 9, 1993.

Summary:

The administration of the National Defence Medical Centre (NDMC) decided to create bilingual nursing positions in its emergency department in response to a critical report from the Commissioner of Official Languages. The plaintiff civilian nurses had worked in emergency for periods ranging from seven to nine years. They were not bilingual and were transferred under protest from their jobs in emergency to other wards. The plaintiffs had all initially worked as casual or term employees, but had acquired indeterminate status because of their lengthy service. The plaintiffs sought declarations that their rights as unilingual incumbents of bilingual positions were breached and that they were entitled to remain in or be reinstated to their positions in the emergency department.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, declared that the plaintiffs' rights under s. 6(a) of the Public Service Official Languages Exclusion Approval Order were breached, but declined to grant a declaration that they were entitled to remain in or be reinstated to their emergency department positions, because NDMC had existing plans to designate the emergency department as a military specialty area.

Labour Law - Topic 9828

Public service labour relations - Job description - Language requirements - The National Defence Medical Centre decided to create bilingual nursing positions in its emergency department in response to a critical report from the Commissioner of Official Languages - The plaintiff civilian nurses had worked in emergency for periods ranging from seven to nine years - They were not bilingual and were transferred to other wards, solely for language reasons - The plaintiffs had all initially worked as casual or term employees, but had acquired indeterminate status because of their lengthy service - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the plaintiffs occupied "positions" within the meaning of the Official Languages Exclusion Approval Order and were therefore excluded from the general requirement of bilingualism in the Public Service Employment Act.

Words and Phrases

Position - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, interpreted the meaning of the word "position" in the context of s. 6(a) of the Public Service Official Languages Exclusion Approval Order, enacted under the Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C. c. P-33 - See paragraph 26.

Cases Noticed:

Kelso v. Canada, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 199; 35 N.R. 19, refd to. [para. 25].

Syndicat general du Cinema et de la Television (S.G.C.T.) v. National Film Board and Public Service Staff Relations Board, [1978] 1 F.C. 346; 16 N.R. 387 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 16(1), sect. 20(1) [para. 23].

Official Languages Act, S.C. 1988, c. 38, sect. 2 [para. 23].

Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C. 1985 c. P-33, sect. 20 [para. 23].

Public Service Employment Act Regulations (Can.), Public Service Official Languages Exclusion Approval Order, SOR/77-886, as amended by SOR/81-787, sect. 6(a) [para. 24].

Public Service Official Languages Exclusion Approval Order - see Public Service Employment Act Regulations.

Counsel:

J.J. Mark Edwards, for the plaintiffs;

Yvonne E. Milosevic, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Nelligan, Power, Ottawa, Ontario, for the plaintiffs;

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

This case was heard on November 22 to 26, 1993, at Ottawa, Ontario, before McGillis, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on December 9, 1993.