FPSLREB Decisions

Decision Information

Morasse v. Deputy Head (Correctional Service of Canada)

Collection FPSLREB Decisions
Decision Rendered 2026-01-30
Citation 2026 FPSLREB 9
Before Guy Giguère
Decision Type Staffing Complaints
Subject Terms Application of Merit
Choice of process
Definition of abuse of authority
Justification/Written Rationale
Revocation of appointment by Commission or deputy head
Keywords Staffing – Internal non-advertised appointment process – Abuse of authority – Application of merit – Experience – Narrative assessment – Choice of process – Values of fairness and transparency – Revocation – Recommendations to the deputy head and human resources advisors
Original Language French
Note Please note that this decision will be published when it is available in both official languages. If you wish to obtain a copy of the decision in the official language it was written, please communicate with mail.courrier@fpslreb-crtespf.gc.ca.
Summary:

The appointee held an AS-01 position at the Federal Training Centre before being appointed indeterminately between 2010 and 2019. In 2019, she held an AS-01 position at the Regional Reception Centre. In 2021, she returned to the Federal Training Centre, to act in an AS-05 position until May 2024, when she was indeterminately appointed to the position. In 2023, the appointee was appointed indeterminately to an AS-02 position but never held it. The complainant made a complaint against the appointment to the AS-05 position. She alleged that there was no urgency to proceed through a non-advertised process. The Board found that the respondent abused its authority when it used a non-advertised process. The respondent engaged in high-risk practices when it came to respecting the values of fairness and transparency that underlie appointments. The information in the Articulation of the Selection Decision document was missing or insufficient: 1) the appointee’s assessment in May 2024 did not meet the merit criteria that required recent and meaningful experience, 2) the exceptional context of a multi-step leap in an appointment was not explained, and 3) the appointee was appointed to an AS-02 position without ever occupying that position and then shortly after that was appointed to an AS-05 position indeterminately. In addition, management consistently favoured acting appointments and indeterminately appointed employees to positions that they did not actually occupy. The complainant also alleged that the appointee did not meet all the qualifications. The Board found that the respondent abused its authority by making an appointment that was not based on merit. There were several errors and inaccuracies in its assessment: 1) the experience was not recent and significant, 2) the appointee did not hold certain positions, and 3) the narrative assessment was neither complete nor updated as of May 2024. The Board ordered the deputy head to revoke the appointment, as it was not based on merit.

Complaint allowed.

Decision Content

There is no document available for this decision.
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.