Wilkinson et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 741

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Judge: Roy, J.
• Citation: 2014 FC 741,(2014), 460 F.T.R. 175 (FC)
• Date: 22 January 2014
• Subject Matter: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,LABOUR LAW

Wilkinson v. Can. (A.G.) (2014), 460 F.T.R. 175 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.060

Murray Wilkinson, Jerry Jesso, Christopher Argue, James Bastarache, Catherine Black, Cynthia Burns, Laura Clarke, Richard Cuzzetto, Angelo De Riggi, Jeff Dunk, George Durston, Jacques Frechette, Lily-Claude Fortin, Frank Gonclaves, Nelson Guay, Claude Harvey, Mark Hastie, Mark Hayes, Fanny Ho, Alana Huntley, Mark Kapiczowski, Kevin Kelly, Rose-Ann Jang, Alan Johns, Angelia Johnson, Cameron Jung, Bob Ledoux, Robert Lohnes, Ina McRae, Debbie Main, Gregory McKenna, Shane McKinnon, Karen McMahon, Michael McPhalen, Maureen Miller, Manjit Singh Moore, Ron Nault, Fiona Northcote, Henry Peters, Linda Robertson, Ralph Schoenig, Patrick Scott, Darlene Stamp, Richard Stefaniuk, Doug Tisdale, Keith Watkins and Harald Wuigk (applicants) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-518-13; 2014 FC 741)

Indexed As: Wilkinson et al. v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

Roy, J.

July 24, 2014.

Summary:

The applicants were Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) employees. They were all classified as FB-06 (Frontière-Border) and they were designated as "Manager, Regional Programs". The applicants challenged the classification. A Classification Grievance Committee determined that the factor designated as "Decision Making" should be moved from degree 5 to degree 6. That increased the number of points to a level such that a classification to the FB-07 level became appropriate. The President of the CBSA (the Deputy Head) rejected the recommendation of the Classification Grievance Committee. The applicants applied for judicial review of that decision.

The Federal Court allowed the application and sent the matter back for redetermination.

Administrative Law - Topic 549

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunals - Reasons for decision - Sufficiency of - [See Labour Law - Topic 9805 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3221

Judicial review - General - Unreasonableness of decision attacked - Reasonableness simpliciter - [See Labour Law - Topic 9805 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9605

Public service labour relations - Collective agreement - Job classifications - Reclassification - [See Labour Law - Topic 9805 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9805

Public service labour relations - Job classification - Appeals or grievances - The applicants were Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) employees - They were classified as FB-06 (Frontière-Border) and designated as "Manager, Regional Programs" - The applicants grieved their employment classification - A Classification Grievance Committee determined that the factor designated as "Decision Making" should be moved from degree 5 to degree 6 - That increased the number of points to a level such that a classification to the FB-07 level became appropriate - The President of the CBSA (the Deputy Head) rejected the recommendation of the Classification Grievance Committee - The applicants applied for judicial review of that decision - The Federal Court allowed the application - The court stated, inter alia, that "In a case like this one, the reasons given to depart from a well-articulated recommendation must be intelligible, in the sense that they 'are able to be understood' ... With great respect, the decision does not have that measure of intelligibility. It seems to contemplate statements made with respect to degrees 7 and 6 as if they related to degrees 6 and 5. If that is not what the decision actually meant, the respondent has been incapable of enlightening the Court either by providing an alternate meaning. The respondent also seems to rely on 'the intention behind ... the position' in order to take the analysis outside of the job description that is at the heart of the grievance adjudication. Finally it faults the Committee for not having considered the organizational context, where it would appear that the Committee considered that context. If the Deputy Head disagreed with the findings on that account, he did not express where his disagreement lies. ... this reviewing court is left without understanding 'why the tribunal made its decision'" - See paragraphs 18 to 44.

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 17].

McLean v. British Columbia Securities Commission, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 895; 347 B.C.A.C. 1; 593 W.A.C. 1; 452 N.R. 340; 2013 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 17].

Beauchemin v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2008), 364 F.T.R. 159; 2008 FC 186, refd to. [para. 17].

McEvoy et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2013), 435 F.T.R. 69; 2013 FC 685, refd to. [para. 17].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 17].

Rahal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 163; 2012 FC 319, refd to. [para. 38].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708; 424 N.R. 220; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 41].

Counsel:

Andrew Raven and Morgan Rowe, for the applicants;

Sean Kelly, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicants;

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

This application was heard on January 22, 2014, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Roy, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on July 24, 2014.