Rabbath v. Canada (Attorney General),

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: Locke, J.
• Citation: (2014), 466 F.T.R. 129 (FC),2014 FC 999
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Date: 14 October 2014

Rabbath v. Can. (A.G.) (2014), 466 F.T.R. 129 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2014] F.T.R. TBEd. OC.045

Camille-Alain Rabbath (applicant) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-1674-13; 2014 FC 999; 2014 CF 999)

Indexed As: Rabbath v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

Locke, J.

October 21, 2014.

Summary:

Rabbath was a defence scientist with the Department of National Defence. Under the career progression framework for Rabbath's group, the deputy minister considered the input of the Human Resources Management Committee (the committee) to make decisions regarding career progression. The Independent Recourse Mechanism for Defence Scientists allowed an employee who disagreed with the committee's decision to have the decision analysed by an independent reviewer. Based on the reviewer's recommendation, the deputy minister made a final decision. In January 2012, the committee refused to recommend a promotion for Rabbath. A reviewer found that the committee had followed the appropriate process, but recommended that the committee review Rabbath's 2011-2012 file and provide feedback to Rabbath. The deputy minister declined to follow the reviewer's recommendation to return the file to the committee as Rabbath had, in the meantime, been promoted. Rabbath applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application. The deputy minister's decision was reasonable.

Crown - Topic 685

Authority of Ministers - Exercise of - Administrative or policy decisions - Appeals or judicial review - Rabbath was a defence scientist with the Department of National Defence - Under the career progression framework for Rabbath's group, the deputy minister considered the input of the Human Resources Management Committee (the committee) to make decisions regarding career progression - The Independent Recourse Mechanism for Defence Scientists allowed an employee who disagreed with the committee's decision to have the decision analysed by an independent reviewer - Based on the reviewer's recommendation, the deputy minister made a final decision - In January 2012, the committee refused to recommend a promotion for Rabbath - A reviewer found that the committee had followed the appropriate process, but recommended that the committee review Rabbath's 2011-2012 file and provide feedback to Rabbath - The deputy minister declined to follow the reviewer's recommendation to return the file to the committee as Rabbath had, in the meantime, been promoted - The Federal Court dismissed Rabbath's application for judicial review - It was agreed that the reasonableness standard applied - The deputy minister's decision was reasonable - By that time, there was no remedy that could be given to Rabbath that would be more than the promotion already received - Based on the reviewer's recommendation, a retroactive granting of the promotion was not contemplated - While there were repeated delays in the process, Rabbath had not been prejudiced by the delays - However, in light of the respondent's failure to meet prescribed deadlines without excuse or explanation, no costs were awarded.

Labour Law - Topic 9183.1

Public service labour relations - Job competitions - General - Rules and procedure for promotions - [See Crown - Topic 685 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9307

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - General - Decisions of reviewer appointed under staffing program - [See Crown - Topic 685 ].

Practice - Topic 7021

Costs - Party and party costs - Successful party - Exceptions - Conduct (incl. counsel) - [See Crown - Topic 685 ].

Practice - Topic 7035

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitlement to party and party costs - The Crown or governmental bodies - [See Crown - Topic 685 ].

Cases Noticed:

Tran v. Canada (Attorney General), [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 205; 2013 FC 455, refd to. [para. 23].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 31].

Backx v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency et al. (2013), 427 F.T.R. 148; 2013 FC 139, refd to. [para. 31].

Spencer v. Canada (Attorney General) (2010), 360 F.T.R. 251; 2010 FC 33, refd to. [para. 31].

Peck v. Parks Canada (2009), 359 F.T.R. 136; 2009 FC 686, refd to. [para. 31].

Counsel:

Christopher Rootham, for the applicant;

Lesa Brown, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Nelligan, O'Brien, Payne LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 14, 2014, by Locke, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on October 21, 2014.