FPSLREB Decisions

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

1 Fouad Lablack, the complainant, alleges that the respondent, the Deputy Minister of Health Canada, abused its authority in the application of merit by showing personal favouritism towards the appointee, allowing him to undergo a language assessment twice as part of this appointment process and thus qualify for the Financial Officer position at issue. The complainant also alleges that the respondent discriminated against him in this appointment process because of his national or ethnic origin and his religion.

2 The respondent denies these allegations. It submits that the appointee, Mario Boulianne, passed another language assessment as part of his ongoing second‑language training, and that he was thus qualified when he was appointed from the pool. The respondent submits that Mr. Boulianne was selected because he met one of the established asset qualifications.

3 The Public Service Commission (PSC) was not represented at the hearing, but it provided written submissions and described, in particular, its policies on employment equity in the appointment process and on official languages in the appointment process. The PSC did not take a position on the merits of the complaint.

4 The Canadian Human Rights Commission indicated that it did not intend to make submissions in this case.

5 For the reasons set out below, the Public Service Staffing Tribunal (the Tribunal) finds that the complainant did not establish that the respondent showed personal favouritism towards Mr. Boulianne nor that prohibited grounds of discrimination were factors in the decision not to appoint the complainant to the position at issue.

Background and relevant evidence

6 The complainant has been a Senior Grants and Contributions Clerk (CR‑05) at Health Canada since 2005. He joined the federal public service in 2002, and has held various clerk (CR‑04) and financial officer (FI‑01 and FI‑02) positions. He holds a bachelor’s degree in management from the Université de Montréal’s École des Hautes études commerciales. The complainant, of Moroccan origin, is an Arab and a Muslim.

7 On April 28, 2009, the respondent posted a Job Opportunity Advertisement to staff a Financial Officer (FI‑01) position in its regional Financial Services and Material Management Directorate in Montreal, Quebec. The language profile of the position was bilingual imperative BBB/BBB. The advertisement indicated that the process would be used to create a pool of qualified candidates to staff similar positions of varying tenures at the same group and level within the organization.

8 In addition to the essential education, experience and official language proficiency qualifications, the advertisement included asset qualifications, including experience in using the SAP financial system.

9 Pierre Veilleux is the Regional Manager of Financial Services(FI‑03) with the Financial Services and Material Management Directorate in Montréal. He was the delegated manager for this selection process and was the chair of the assessment board (the board), which included two other people. As part of the assessment of the candidates’ essential qualifications, Mr. Veilleux conducted reference checks with the candidates’ chosen referees.

10 The complainant listed two referees, one of whom was Suzanne Lachance, Regional Manager of Accounting Operations (FI‑03) with the Financial Services and Material Management Directorate. Ms. Lachance was not a member of the assessment board that created the pool. In her reference, Ms. Lachance made certain comments about the complainant’s “culture”. Those comments are the basis of the allegations of discrimination and will be discussed later on.

11 The board determined that six people, including the complainant and Mr. Boulianne, met all the essential qualifications, excluding official language proficiency, which would be assessed when an appointment was to be made. Their names were added to the pool created at the end of the process.

12 Because Mr. Boulianne did not obtain the B level required in the English test of written expression on the second language evaluation (SLE) tests administered on September 22, 2009, he could not be appointed to the Financial Officer (FI‑01) position that became available in fall 2009.

13 The complainant passed the SLE tests and was appointed to an acting Financial Officer (FI‑01) position for the period from October 19, 2009, to October 18, 2010. That acting appointment was then extended a number of times, up to March 31, 2012. The complainant’s name remained in the pool because the appointment was not indeterminate.

14 On February 4, 2010, Mr. Boulianne obtained the required B level on another SLE test assessing written expression in English.

15 On March 22, 2010, Mr. Boulianne received an acting appointment to a Financial Officer position in Ms. Lachance’s section, in Accounting Operations, to replace an employee on secondment.

16 In May-June 2011, Ms. Lachance, as delegated manager, had to staff the Financial Officer (FI‑01) position at issue in her section. Human Resources (HR) proposed two candidates from the pool—the complainant and Mr. Boulianne. She selected Mr. Boulianne for appointment to this position. In support of her choice, on June 6, 2011, she completed the Rationale Form – Selection and Appointment Following an Advertised Process [translation]. On the form, she states that Mr. Boulianne and the complainant meet the essential qualifications equally, and that the right fit was chosen on the basis of the following asset qualification: “Experience in using the SAP financial system (accounting operations function), and the SPS and TEMT systems” [translation]. Ms. Lachance explained that the terms SPS and TEMT mean “Standard Payment System” and “Travel Expense Management Tool” respectively.

17 On June 15, 2011, the respondent posted a Notification of Appointment or Proposal of Appointment for Mr. Boulianne’s indeterminate appointment to the position at issue.

18 On June 21, 2011, the complainant filed a complaint with the Tribunal pursuant to s. 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12 and 13 (the PSEA), in relation to that appointment.

Issues

19 The Tribunal must decide the following issues:

1. Did the respondent show personal favouritism towards the appointee by allowing him to retake the second language evaluation within the same appointment process?
2. Did the respondent discriminate against the complainant because of his national or ethnic origin or his religion when staffing the position at issue?

Analysis

20 Section 77(1) of the PSEA states that a person in the area of recourse may make a complaint that he or she was not appointed or proposed for appointment by reason of an abuse of authority by the PSC or the deputy head in the appointment process. Abuse of authority is not defined in the PSEA, but s. 2(4) states that, for greater certainty, “a reference in this Act to abuse of authority shall be construed as including bad faith and personal favouritism”.

21 As has been established by the Tribunal, the complainant bears the burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent abused its authority in the appointment process. See Tibbs v. Deputy Minister of National Defence, 2006 PSST 0008, at para. 49.

Issue I: Did the respondent show personal favouritism towards the appointee by allowing him to retake the second language evaluation within the same appointment process?

22 The complainant alleges that the respondent showed personal favouritism towards Mr. Boulianne and that his appointment was not based on merit. The complainant submits that the respondent abused its authority when it appointed Mr. Boulianne to the position at issue because he had already taken the SLE tests as part of an impending appointment to another position earlier in this appointment process, and failed to meet the language requirements.

23 According to the complainant, the respondent nevertheless allowed Mr. Boulianne to retake the second language evaluation as part of this appointment process, which is a violation of the PSC’s Policy on Official Languages in the Appointment Process and constitutes personal favouritism. Mr. Boulianne passed the second evaluation and was appointed to the position at issue.

24 Section 30(2)(b) of the PSEA states that where there is a choice to be made from among qualified candidates, the selection may be made on the basis of additional asset qualifications, operational requirements and organizational needs. However, the selection should never be for reasons of personal favouritism. In Glasgow v. Deputy Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2008 PSST 0007, the Tribunal established that evidence of personal favouritism can be direct; however, it will often be a question of circumstantial evidence where some action, comment or event prior to or during the appointment process will have to be reviewed.

25 Christiane Lefebvre is a Senior HR Advisor at Health Canada. She testified that the HR Directorate is responsible for verifying, for every appointment, whether the candidate meets the requirements of the position. She sent the results of this appointment process to the candidates in September 2009.

26 Ms. Lefebvre stated that Mr. Boulianne took the SLE tests on September 23, 2009, for an impending acting appointment to be made from the pool, but that he did not pass the test assessing written expression in English, achieving only a level A. Therefore, he was not given that appointment. In a letter dated September 24, 2009, notifying Mr. Boulianne of his SLE results, Ms. Lefebvre informed him that if he obtained the required language profile in the context of another appointment process or under other circumstances, he could be included in the pool of candidates.

27 Ms. Lefebvre stated that no pool of fully qualified candidates exists because a candidate’s language results can change during the life of a pool. Instead, a pool of partially qualified candidates is established. If a candidate in the pool is selected for an impending appointment to a bilingual position, that candidate’s language profile is verified and, if necessary, SLE tests are administered. If the candidate fails any one of the three tests (written comprehension, written expression and oral interaction), he or she remains in the pool of partially qualified candidates. If the candidate subsequently passes an SLE test as part of another appointment process or through language training, he or she can then be considered for a potential appointment to a position with the appropriate language profile.

28 Ms. Lefebvre confirmed that SLE tests can be administered only once within the same appointment process. She stated that the standard within the Department is to provide language training to employees to help them maintain or improve their official language proficiency. Mr. Boulianne was able to retake the SLE tests as a result of language training that was approved in his learning plan.

29 In the PSC’s Guidance Series – Official Languages in the Appointment Process, section 5.3.2.2.3, Review of scores and reassessment of SLE test results, reads as follows:

Legal, regulatory or guideline requirements

[…]

• SLE tests may not be administered again within the same appointment process, unless the PSC decides otherwise.

30 A PSC interpretation document dated January 10, 2012, filed into evidence with the parties’ consent, confirms that managers cannot request that new SLE tests be administered for other purposes during an appointment process, or for the purpose of circumventing the PSC’s appointment policies. In particular, SLE tests can be administered only once within the same appointment process. The document also specifies that the individuals responsible for the evaluation cannot however ignore SLE results obtained in circumstances outside the given appointment process.

31 The evidence shows that Mr. Boulianne obtained a level A on a test assessing written expression in English on September 22, 2009, but that he already had the required level B for the other two criteria. A PSC document dated September 23, 2011, and filed into evidence indicates Mr. Boulianne’s other SLE results. According to that document, the employee took a written comprehension test on November 19, 2009 (level achieved: C), a written expression test on February 4, 2010 (level achieved: B), and an oral interaction test on March 23, 2010 (level achieved: B). Therefore, as of February 4, 2010, Mr. Boulianne met the official language proficiency qualifications of bilingual imperative BBB/BBB and could be considered for an appointment to a Financial Officer position. Mr. Boulianne met the official language proficiency requirements when he was appointed to the position at issue.

32 In his arguments, the complainant questioned the employer’s statement that Mr. Boulianne did not retake the SLE tests within the same appointment process, but rather, following his language training. In support of his argument, the complainant submitted that the respondent did not provide him with a copy of all the documents it had relating to Mr. Boulianne’s language training or language skills from the date of the start of the appointment process, as ordered by the Tribunal in its order for the provision of information dated September 20, 2011. The complainant states that he did not receive any documents confirming that it was in the context of language training that Mr. Boulianne retook the SLE tests and achieved the B level he needed. The complainant submits that those documents therefore do not exist and that Ms. Lefebvre’s testimony does not explain what happened.

33 The Tribunal notes however that after the order for the provision of information was issued on September 20, 2011, the complainant did not inform the Tribunal that the respondent had not provided him with those documents nor did he raise any concerns about this issue with the Tribunal.

34 Ms. Lefebvre testified at the hearing that the PSC’s rules on administering SLE tests were followed and that Mr. Boulianne was not re-tested as part of this appointment process. The complainant did not submit any evidence to the contrary. The Tribunal finds that the evidence establishes that the additional SLE tests taken by Mr. Boulianne were administered following his ongoing language training, which is not a violation of the PSC’s policy.

35 Lastly, the complainant also filed into evidence an October 2009 PSC report entitled Audit of Health Canada – A report by the Public Service Commission of Canada. That report covers a period preceding the appointment process that led to the creation of the pool. However, the complainant did not explain the relevance of the report or make any arguments linking the report to the points at issue. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the complainant has not established how that report is relevant to this case.

36 The Tribunal finds that the complainant’s allegation of personal favouritism is unsubstantiated.

Issue II: Did the respondent discriminate against the complainant because of his national or ethnic origin or his religion when staffing the position at issue?

37 The complainant alleges that the respondent discriminated against him because of his national or ethnic origin or his religion. In support of his allegation, he notes that Ms. Lachance, the delegated manager responsible for staffing the position at issue, made discriminatory remarks about him in the reference check conducted for the appointment process that led to the creation of the pool. He asserts that it was Ms. Lachance who decided not to appoint him when she staffed the Financial Officer position in her own section in 2011, and that she is prejudiced against him.

38 The complainant explained that it was during the exchange of information period in relation to his complaint against the appointment of Mr. Boulianne that he learned of the reference that Ms. Lachance had given him.

39 Mr. Veilleux confirmed that, on August 25, 2009, he contacted Ms. Lachance, the complainant’s supervisor since July 2009, for a reference. She was not a member of the assessment board.

40 Mr. Veilleux’s notes in the References Guide [translation] indicate the following with regard to the reference Ms. Lachance gave for the complainant:

[Question asked, qualification assessed, expected behaviour]

Is the candidate typically sensitive to and respectful of diversity when dealing with the public and/or co-workers? Please explain your answer.

Respect for diversity: Demonstrates respect for diversity.

Behaviours:

Shows respect for diversity in his dealings with others;
Shows a true sense of what should be done or said. Is able to avoid any potential problems.

[Ms. Lachance’s answer]

In this regard
very open and available
adapts well
nothing of note

______________

He has trouble working with female supervisors
authority of Isabelle or Lise.
need to treat him with kid gloves.
you have to choose your words carefully with him
question of culture.

[translation]

(Explanations in italics and bold type added)

41 Mr. Veilleux stated that he recorded Ms. Lachance’s answers word for word and that she did not place a lot of emphasis on her comments about the complainant’s interactions with women. The board found the rest of Ms. Lachance’s comments, and those from the complainant’s other referee, to be very positive, and awarded the complainant “a very good score of 7/10” [translation].

42 According to the complainant, Ms. Lachance’s comments shocked him because they in no way reflect his personal values. He emphasized that she never took part in his performance appraisals and never made any comments to him that related to what was reported in her references. He stated that no complaints of that nature have ever been made against him in his career in the public service, and that he has never been asked to change his attitude toward women.

43 Chantal Morin, Grants and Contributions Financial Officer (FI‑01) and the complainant’s current supervisor, and Lise Dupont, one of the complainant’s former co‑workers at Health Canada, were called to testify by the complainant. Both witnesses stated that the complainant has no trouble working with women or dealing with women in authority. He has never made misogynistic comments. They always had a very good relationship with him.

Analytical framework for an allegation of discrimination

44 Pursuant to s. 80 of the PSEA, in considering whether a complaint under s. 77 is substantiated, the Tribunal may interpret and apply the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6 (CHRA). Section 7 of the CHRA stipulates that it is a discriminatory practice to directly or indirectly refuse to employ or continue to employ any individual, or, in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee, on a prohibited ground of discrimination. Section 3 of the CHRA lists the prohibited grounds of discrimination, which include national or ethnic origin and religion.

45 In a human rights context, the complainant bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. In Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Simpsons‑Sears Ltd., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536 (also known as the O'Malley decision), the Supreme Court of Canada set out the test for establishing a prima facie case of discrimination:

28 …The complainant in proceedings before human rights tribunals must show a prima facie case of discrimination. A prima facie case in this context is one which covers the allegations made and which, if they are believed, is complete and sufficient to justify a verdict in the complainant's favour in the absence of an answer from the respondent‑employer…

46 The Tribunal must therefore determine whether, if the complainant's evidence is believed, that evidence is sufficiently complete to justify a finding of discrimination in the absence of an explanation from the respondent. At this stage of the analysis, the Tribunal cannot take into consideration the employer’s answer before determining whether the complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination. See Lincoln v. Bay Ferries Ltd., 2004 F.C.A. 204, at para. 22.

47 A number of decisions have served to illustrate the kind of evidence that may be used to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. In Shakes v. Rex Pak Ltd., (1981) 3 C.H.R.R. D/1001, where it was alleged that an employer refused to employ the complainant, the Ontario Board of Inquiry indicated that a prima facie case of discrimination can be established by showing that:

• the complainant was qualified for the particular employment;
• the complainant was not hired;
• someone no better qualified but lacking the distinguishing feature which is the gravamen of the human rights complaint subsequently obtained the position.

48 If the complainant successfully establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the respondent must then provide a reasonable explanation to demonstrate that the alleged discrimination did not occur as alleged or was not a discriminatory practice. See Grant v. Manitoba Telecom Services Inc., 2012 CHRT 10, at para. 49.

Did the complainant establish a prima facie case of discrimination?

49 The complainant submits that he has established a prima facie case of discrimination and that the evidence, in relation to the reference provided by Ms. Lachance and her subsequent decision to appoint Mr. Boulianne to the Financial Officer position in her section, shows that his national or ethnic origin or his religion are factors on which she may have based her decision.

50 The complainant submits that he has the required qualifications for the position at issue but that the preferred candidate was Mr. Boulianne, who is not of Moroccan origin, an Arab or a Muslim. Mr. Boulianne was allowed to retake the SLE test, thus violating the PSC’s policy.

51 The Tribunal is of the view that the “question of culture” [translation] comment that follows Ms. Lachance’s remarks about the complainant’s alleged attitude toward women or women in authority could be perceived as indicating prejudice and discrimination in relation to the attitude of Arab and Muslim men, like the complainant, toward women or women in authority.

52 The Tribunal finds that, if the complainant’s evidence is believed, he has established the presence of all the factors in the test set out in Shakes. He qualified for and was put into the pool for the position, as was the candidate who was ultimately appointed and who, unlike the complainant, is not of Moroccan origin, an Arab or a Muslim.

53 Moreover, based on the circumstantial evidence submitted by the complainant, the delegated manager of the position at issue had previously made comments alluding to prejudices associated with Muslim Arab men, like the complainant. Overall, the evidence establishes a prima facie case that discrimination on the basis of national or ethnic origin or religion was a factor in the respondent’s decision not to appoint the complainant to the position.

Did the respondent provide a reasonable non-discriminatory explanation?

54 The Tribunal having found that the complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination, the respondent must now show that discrimination played no role in the decision not to select the complainant for the position at issue.

The reference checks in the initial appointment process

55 Mr. Veilleux was the Regional Manager of Accounting Operations in 2008, and was replaced by Ms. Lachance in July 2009. The complainant worked in his section until Ms. Lachance’s arrival. Mr. Veilleux also supervised the complainant when the latter subsequently worked as an FI‑01. In his opinion, the complainant is not sexist and has no trouble working with women. He said that, as is the case with everyone, interpersonal relationships depend on individual personalities.

56 Ms. Lachance stated that she provided a good reference for the complainant. That portion of the reference dealt with focus on service. Ms. Lachance explained that she had to be very honest and mention what had been brought to her attention. When asked about her comment regarding the complainant’s difficulty with women in authority, Ms. Lachance stated that she did not believe it was a problem. She stated that she told Mr. Veilleux that she did not know whether it was related to women or something else, or whether it was cultural or personal, but that two supervisors had made comments about it to her and she had questions about it.

57 Ms. Lachance stated that she met with the complainant in July 2009 to review and discuss his work methods and to help her understand why some people felt the need to use kid gloves when speaking to him. She stated that it was a productive meeting, that the complainant raised some interesting points, and that she thanked him for working constructively.

58 When the complainant learned about Ms. Lachance’s comments through the exchange of information in the complaint process, she told him that she had not wanted to hurt him and that she regretted his finding out that way.

59 The Tribunal finds that Mr. Veilleux has provided a reasonable explanation and that there was no discrimination in the candidate assessment that led to the creation of the pool. According to Mr. Veilleux, the board did not place any particular importance on Ms. Lachance’s comments about the complainant’s interactions with women. He had met all the requirements of the position, his name was placed in the pool, and he received an acting appointment to a Financial Officer position in October 2009.

The subsequent staffing of a Financial Officer position in Ms. Lachance’s section

60 The complainant stated that he has seven to eight years of experience working with the SAP financial system; his experience is primarily in the area of grants, contributions and contracts. He worked in the Accounting Operations section as a CR‑04 clerk from July 10 to October 18, 2009, and his duties involved contracts and transfers to accounting operations. He received training in that field. The complainant states that he could easily learn in four months what he needs to know for the position at issue.

61 Ms. Lachance has been the Regional Manager of Accounting Operations (FI‑03) with the Financial Services and Material Management Directorate since July 2009, and has been a public servant since 1998. She testified that the complainant worked in her section for a short period from July to October 2009, and that following a reorganization, the complainant and the duties of his position were moved to contracts and contributions in Mr. Veilleux’s section.

62 Ms. Lachance stated that, in June 2011, she was looking for someone with experience in, rather than knowledge of, accounting operations because her section had new employees who did not have a lot of experience.

63 Ms. Lachance explained that accounting operations involve payments that fall under various directives (travel, hospitality, relocation) and deal with expenditures incurred.

64 Referring to Mr. Boulianne’s curriculum vitae (CV), Ms. Lachance described the factors that demonstrate that he has worked with the various modules of the SAP financial system and in accounting operations, and that indicate he has the experience and assets sought. According to Ms. Lachance, Mr. Boulianne’s CV and cover letter clearly show that he also has experience with the travel system for public servants.

65 According to Ms. Lachance, the information in the complainant’s CV shows that he does not have the experience sought in accounting operations and that his experience is primarily related to budgets and accounts receivable. She explained that the complainant has entered payments and made contract payments using the SAP financial system, but his CV does not indicate whether he has worked with certain specific payment codes that she listed. He has no experience with the travel system or with the collections policy, no experience with the TEMT, and no experience with the SPS system. Mr. Boulianne, on the other hand, has that experience. The complainant’s CV also shows that, in his current position as Senior Grants and Contributions Clerk, he controls and commits contracts and contributions in the SAP and grants and contributions systems. However, because the grants and contributions system is not used for accounting operations management, Ms. Lachance did not take into account that experience.

66 Ms. Lachance explained that the complainant thus did not have the experience she was looking for and that if Mr. Boulianne had not been available, she would have had to find another candidate with that experience.

67 Sylvie Legault is the Director of Financial Services and Material Management and is Ms. Lachance’s supervisor. She explained that her managers have delegated staffing authority. They make the selections for staffing their positions, and then they consult her and she gives her approval. She confirmed that Ms. Lachance consulted her when staffing the position at issue. Ms. Legault stated that she reviewed Mr. Boulianne’s and the complainant’s CVs. She reviewed Mr. Boulianne’s various competencies and the asset qualification he had in the area of accounting operations. In her opinion, he was the right fit for the position because he had the relevant experience for a Financial Officer position in Accounting Operations.

68 Mr. Veilleux confirmed that both the complainant and Mr. Boulianne had previously worked for him. When asked about the CVs they submitted in 2009 and what they indicate regarding accounting operations, Mr. Veilleux stated that Mr. Boulianne’s strength was in accounting operations, whereas the complainant’s strength was in contracts and contributions. Mr. Veilleux explained that those fields are different and that someone could not be taken from contracts and simply sent to accounting operations without any training because it would create problems. Mr. Veilleux confirmed that the complainant could easily learn a module with which he was not familiar. However, in 2009, Mr. Boulianne had more experience than the complainant with the SAP financial system.

69 Section 30(1) of the PSEA states that appointments to or from within the public service must be made on the basis of merit and must be free from political influence. As the Tribunal noted in Tibbs, the PSEA provides managers with considerable discretion to choose the person who is the right fit for the position, that is, the person who not only meets the essential qualifications, but who also has additional asset qualifications or meets current or future needs and/or operational requirements. See also Visca v. Deputy Minister of Justice, 2007 PSST 0024, at para. 42.

70 The evidence shows that both the complainant and Mr. Boulianne met the essential qualifications. Ms. Lachance even indicated on the Rationale Form – Selection and Appointment Following an Advertised Process [translation] that Mr. Boulianne and the complainant were equally qualified in terms of the essential qualifications.

71 However, the position at issue also required asset qualifications, namely, experience in using the SAP financial system (accounting operations function), and the SPS and TEMT systems. The respondent adequately explained why Mr. Boulianne, and not the complainant, had all the experience and assets sought for this position. The evidence shows that the complainant did not have the required experience with the SAP, SPS and TEMT systems. Therefore, he did not meet the asset qualifications and, as a result, was not qualified for the position at issue. He would have needed training. Ms. Lachance, the delegated manager, was looking for someone who already had the necessary experience to make up for the lack of experience of the new employees in her section.

72 Therefore, the Tribunal finds that, in light of the respondent’s evidence, the basis of the complainant’s prima facie case of discrimination, namely, that he was qualified for the position in question, must be rejected.

73 The Tribunal has already found that the respondent did not prove that Mr. Boulianne was shown personal favouritism with regard to the evaluation of the second language. Given the circumstances described, the Tribunal is of the view that the respondent provided a reasonable explanation for choosing Mr. Boulianne for the Financial Officer position at issue, and that the complainant’s national or ethnic origin or religion were not factors in the decision not to appoint him to the position. The complainant was not appointed to the position because he did not meet the asset qualifications.

74 Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the complainant’s allegation that he was not appointed to the Financial Officer position because of discriminatory practices is unsubstantiated.

Decision

75 For all these reasons, the complaint is dismissed.

Lyette Babin-MacKay
Member

Parties of Record

Tribunal File:

2011-0517

Style of Cause:

Fouad Lablack and the Deputy Minister of Health Canada

Hearing:

October 2 and 3, 2012
Montreal, Quebec

Final written submissions received on
November 6, 2012

Date of Reasons:

March 6, 2013

APPEARANCES:

For the complainant:

Daniel Dubé

For the respondent:

Dora Benbaruk

For the Public
Service Commission:

John Unrau
(written submissions)