FPSLREB Decisions
Decision Information
Procedure - Request for disqualification - after having heard evidence from two witnesses, adjudicator indicated to the parties that his father and grandfather had been librarians at the Library of Parliament for a number of years - after consultation with her client, employer's attorney made an application for disqualification - adjudicator concluded that while no actual bias existed in the instant case, he agreed that his personal and family relations could create an appearance, even a reasonable apprehension, of bias - files were therefore reassigned to another adjudicator. Grievances reassigned. Case cited: Committee for Justice and Liberty v National Energy Office, 1978 1 S.C.R. 369.
Decision Content
Files: 466-LP-225 to 233 466-LP-241 to 245
Parliamentary Employment and Before the Public Service Staff Relations Act Staff Relations Board BETWEEN C. BRECKENRIDGE, M. CARPENTIER, D. CHARETTE, D. LEDOUX, J. MARETT, D. SÉGUIN, E.S. SLONE, L.A. THERRIEN, M.J. VAN DEN BERGH, R.D. BLONDIN, L. BRANCHAUD, P. LEMOINE, J.-P. LORRAIN AND C.M. RUSSO
Grievors and THE LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT Employer Before: Yvon Tarte, Deputy Chairperson For the Grievors: Francine Cabana, Public Service Alliance of Canada For the Employer: Carole Piette, counsel Heard at Ottawa, Ontario February 13, 1996
DECISION Following the start of the hearing of these cases, given the content of the testimony of Louis Branchaud and Danielle Séguin, I mentioned to the parties the fact that my father and grandfather had been librarians in the Library of Parliament for many years.
After consulting with his client, Ms Piette asked that I disqualify myself. Natural justice requires that I act with impartiality and autonomy not only in fact but even in appearance. In its decision Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board, [1978] 1 SCR 369, at page 391, the Supreme Court of Canada discussed the issue in the following terms: When the concern is, as here, that there be no prejudgment of issues (and certainly no predetermination) relating not only to whether a particular application for a pipeline will succeed but also to whether any pipeline will be approved, the participation of Mr. Crowe, ... in my opinion, cannot but give rise to a reasonable apprehension, which reasonably well-informed persons could properly have, of a biased appraisal and judgment of the issues to be determined ...
This Court in fixing on the test of reasonable apprehension of bias, as in Ghirardosi v. Minister of Highways for British Columbia, and again in Blanchette v. C.I.S. Ltd., (where Pigeon J. said at p. 842-43, that “a reasonable apprehension that the judge might not act in an entirely impartial manner is ground for disqualification”) was merely restating what Rand J. said in Szilard v. Szasz, at pp. 6-7 in speaking of the “probability or reasoned suspicion of biased appraisal and judgment, unintended though it be”. This test is grounded in a firm concern that there be no lack of public confidence in the impartiality of adjudicative agencies, and I think that emphasis is lent to this concern in the present case by the fact that the National Energy Board is enjoined to have regard for the public interest.
[emphasis added] I accept the fact that my personal and family relations may create an appearance or even reasonable apprehension of bias.
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Decision Page 2 Under the circumstances in this matter, even if there is no actual bias, I agree to disqualify myself. The aforementioned grievances therefore will be assigned to another adjudicator.
Yvon Tarte, Deputy Chairperson
OTTAWA, February 13, 1996 Certified true translation Serge Lareau
Public Service Staff Relations Board