Advanced Search

Jolin v. Deputy Head of Service Canada et al. - 2007 PSST 0011 - 2007-03-27

• i) Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the complaint made by the complainant under section 77 of the PSEA regarding the respondent’s selection and use of assessment methods and more particularly the effect of section 36 of the PSEA on section 77 of this same Act?   [...]  For example, Parliament did not refer to section 36 of the PSEA in section 77, although in that section, it expressly refers to sections 30 and 37 of the PSEA, and implicitly to section 33 of the PSEA.   [...]  2. Section 37 of the PSEA: 33 There is no specific reference linking paragraph 77(1)(a) and section 36, while paragraph 77(1)(c) of the PSEA does specifically refer to subsection 37(1).

MacIntosh v. Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada et al. - 2008 PSST 0001 - 2008-01-11

No appointment was made under the current PSEA, nor has a complaint been filed under subsection 77(1) of the PSEA. A complaint has not been substantiated by the Tribunal and, therefore, there is no order of the Tribunal as to corrective action.   [...]  As such, this complaint was improperly brought under section 83 of the PSEA. 23 The mandate of the Tribunal is set out in subsection 88(2) of the PSEA, which reads as follows: “The mandate of the Tribunal is to consider and dispose of complaints made under subsection 65(1) and sections 74, 77 and 83.”   [...]  26 As the Tribunal held in Smith v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency et al., [2007] PSST 0029, at paragraph 9, a complaint cannot be filed against a deployment under section 77 of the PSEA as a deployment is not an appointment. Thus, no right to complain exists under the PSEA against a deployment.

Tibbs v. Deputy Minister of National Defence et al. - 2006 PSST 0008 - 2006-09-28

36 Furthermore, the language of section 77 of the PSEA emphasizes that the burden is on the complainant. An employee complains that he or she was not appointed because of abuse of authority.   [...]  In interpreting abuse of authority under section 77 of the PSEA, subsections 2(4) and 15(3) should also be taken into account.   [...]  Issue II: Did the actions of the selection board in screening out the complainant and screening in the appointee constitute abuse of authority under section 77 of the PSEA? 56 Abuse of authority is not defined in the PSEA. Subsection 2(4) of the PSEA does provide guidance.

Mar v. Deputy Head (Department of National Defence) - 2023 FPSLREB 25 - 2023-03-14

Pursuant to s. 14 of the Public Service Employment Regulations (SOR/2005-334; “PSER”), an acting appointment of less than four months is excluded from the application of s. 77 of the PSEA and does not constitute an appointment within the meaning of the PSEA.   [...]  [17] The complainant argues that a revocation occurred under the delegated authority set out in ss. 15(1) and 67(1) and (2) of the PSEA. However, she concedes that given the Board’s specific jurisdiction to apply the CHRA to a grievance under the FPSLRA and to a complaint under s 77 of the PSEA, there is no jurisdiction for  [...]  Moreover, even if there had been a revocation, the Board would still not have jurisdiction to interpret and apply the CHRA to this complaint since its CHRA jurisdiction is limited under the PSEA to complaints made under ss. 65 or 77. [42] For all of the above reasons, the Board makes the following order:

Shafaie v. Deputy Head (Department of Health) - 2022 FPSLREB 15 - 2022-03-10

[5] On October 28, 2020, the complainant made a complaint with the Board, pursuant to s. 77 of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; “PSEA”).   [...]  [6] On January 11, 2021, the respondent submitted a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the complainant was outside the area of recourse to make a complaint, as set out in s. 77 of the PSEA. [7] According to s. 77(1) of the PSEA, a person in the area of recourse may make a complaint to the Board that he or   [...]  Those who cannot make a complaint under s. 77 of the PSEA may still seek judicial review of an appointment and the decisions leading up to it, including the determination of the area of selection.

Brown et al. v. Deputy Minister of National Defence et al. - 2008 PSST 0005 - 2008-02-26

Subsection 88(2) of the PSEA establishes the Tribunal’s mandate which is to consider and dispose of complaints made under subsection 65(1), sections 74, 77 and 83.   [...]  In other words, there must be an appointment or proposed appointment otherwise a complaint cannot be filed under section 77 of the PSEA 64 Part 3 of the PSEA deals with deployments. Subsection 53 (1) reads:   [...]  66 Likewise, a complaint cannot be filed under section 77 of the PSEA against the initial acting appointment of Ms. McGuiness in the PG-04 position as this appointment was for a period of less than four months.

Portree v. Deputy Head of Service Canada et al. - 2006 PSST 0014 - 2006-11-21

Subsection 77(1) of the PSEA refers to “abuse of authority” as opposed to “abuse of discretion”.   [...]  38 The PSC finally submits that “abuse of authority” in subsection 77(1) of the PSEA does not include errors and omissions, but will include some form of improper conduct which is associated with intentional wrongdoing.   [...]  41 The Tribunal’s mandate is clearly defined in the PSEA. Subsection 88(2) of the PSEA reads as follows: The mandate of the Tribunal is to consider and dispose of complaints made under subsection 65(1) and sections 74, 77 and 83.

Robbins v. the Deputy Head of Service Canada et al. - 2006 PSST 0017 - 2006-12-06

1 Mr. Lloyd Robbins filed a complaint on May 8, 2006 with the Public Service Staffing Tribunal (the Tribunal) under section 77(1) of the Public Service Employment Act (the PSEA), S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13.   [...]  • section 77 – Grounds of complaint. 31 The PSC then explains its Appointment Policy Framework (the PSC Policy) and is of the view that the respondent’s staffing process is consistent with the PSEA and the PSC Policy.   [...]  33 The complainant filed his complaint under subsection 77(1) of the PSEA. Of particular interest is paragraph 77(1)(b) which reads as follows:

St-Pierre and Létourneau v. Deputy Minister of National Defence et al. - 2007 PSST 0032 - 2007-07-11

2. Do the complainants have a right to recourse under subsection 77(1) of the PSEA? Arguments of the parties A) Arguments of the respondent   [...]  Issue II: Do the complainants have a right to recourse under subsection 77(1) of the PSEA? 20 Subsection 77(1) of the PSEA grants a right to recourse to a person who is not appointed or proposed for appointment in an internal appointment process.   [...]  Instead, the complainants participated in an external appointment process, for which there is no right to recourse under section 77 of the PSEA. 22 In fact, subsection 77(1) of the PSEA clearly states that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to appointments or proposed appointments in internal appointment processes.

Liang v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency et al. - 2007 PSST 0033 - 2007-07-13

35 The intent of Parliament can be found in the specific language of the PSEA. The relevant provisions of the PSEA are subsections 77(1) and (2), 15(1) to (3), 67(1) and 88(2) as well as sections 81, 99, 101 to 103 and 109.   [...]  36 Subsection 77(1) of the PSEA provides that persons may make a complaint to the Tribunal.   [...]  39 The language of the PSEA clearly establishes only one provision conferring a right to complain about an internal appointment process, namely, recourse to the Tribunal under section 77 of the PSEA.

Charlton v. Deputy Minister of National Defence et al. - 2006 PSST 0018 - 2006-12-07

2. If the appointment process was conducted under the PSEA, is the complaint based on a ground of complaint provided in subsection 77(1) of the PSEA?   [...]  13 Secondly, the respondent submits that this complaint is not based on one of the grounds for complaint provided in subsection 77(1) of the PSEA and is therefore not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.   [...]  Issue II: If the appointment process was conducted under the PSEA, is the complaint based on a ground of complaint provided in subsection 77(1) of the PSEA?

Marcil v. Deputy Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities - 2011 PSST 0031 - 2011-10-20

The mandate of the Tribunal is set out in s. 88(2) of the PSEA. The Tribunal is to consider and dispose of complaints made under ss. 65(1), 74, 77 and 83.   [...]  The purpose of s. 77 of the PSEA is to give employees a recourse right if they believe that the deputy head abused its authority in an appointment process.   [...]  used to correct an error in an appointment process if none of the candidates in the appointment process brought a complaint under s. 77 of the PSEA. These processes were not designed to operate together. The deputy head's authority under s. 15(3) of the PSEA is not a substitute for recourse granted under s. 77 of the PSEA.

Robillard v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency et al. - 2007 PSST 0015 - 2007-04-19

2 On November 1, 2006, the complainant, Louis-Serge Robillard, filed a complaint with the Public Service Staffing Tribunal (the Tribunal) under section 77 of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12 and 13 (the PSEA).   [...]  13 For its part, the Public Service Commission (PSC) is of the opinion that section 77 of the PSEA applies exclusively to internal appointment processes. The recourse available in the context of external staffing processes is found in section 66 of the PSEA and not in section 77 of the PSEA.   [...]  17 It seems clear from a reading of subsection 77(1) of the PSEA that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to the internal appointment process, which is defined in subsection 2(1) of the PSEA’s French version1 as an “appointment of a person already employed in the public service” [Translation].