567 result(s)
-
1.
Azevedo v. Deputy Head (Correctional Service of Canada) - 2025 FPSLREB 47 - 2025-05-01
FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing ComplaintsApplication of Merit
Assessment Methods
Choice of process
Definition of abuse of authority
Job opportunity advertisement
Azevedo v. Deputy Head (Correctional Service of Canada), Azevedo c. Administrateur général (Service correctionnel du Canada), 2025 FPSLREB 47, 2025 CRTESPF 47 The complainant made a complaint under ss. 77(1)(a) and (b) of the PSEA, alleging that the respondent abused its authority in the application of merit and its choice
-
2.
Bois v. Deputy Head (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) - 2025 FPSLREB 39 - 2025-04-22
FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing Complaints[2] The complaint was made under ss. 77(1)(a) and (b) of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; PSEA). [...] [43] The complaint was made under ss. 77(1)(a) and (b) of the PSEA. Thus, the issues are whether, one, the respondent demonstrated an abuse of authority by choosing the non-advertised process and, two, in its assessment of the appointee’s merits. [...] I do not find that its approach compromised the PSEA. To the contrary, it was legitimate for the respondent to use it (see Huard, at para. 122).
-
3.
Cooke v. Deputy Head (Correctional Service of Canada) - 2025 FPSLREB 24 - 2025-03-17
FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing ComplaintsApplication of Merit
Assessment Methods
Choice of process
Definition of abuse of authority
Discrimination - Race, National or Ethnic Origin
Jurisdiction
The Board determined that that was not grounds for making a complaint under s. 77 of the PSEA, as a complainant cannot make a complaint on behalf of others. [...] [10] Under the PSEA, Ojibway is not an official language, which means that a complaint made under s. 77(1)(c) of the PSEA that the complainant was not assessed in Ojibway could not be sustained. [...] [127] Under the PSEA, the Board has jurisdiction to render decisions only on complaints clearly enumerated, such as those at s. 77(1).
-
4.
Ghafari v. Deputy Head (Statistics Canada) - 2025 FPSLREB 18 - 2025-02-19
FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing ComplaintsDiscrimination - Disability
Discrimination - Race, National or Ethnic Origin
Order for provision of information request
In the matter of a complaint of abuse of authority under section 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act and a request for an order to provide information pursuant to s. 17 of the Public Service Staffing Complaints Regulations [...] [2] To facilitate the resolution of complaints under the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; “the PSEA”), the complainant and respondent must, as soon as feasible after the complaint has been filed, exchange all relevant information regarding the complaint. [...] Pursuant to ss. 77(1)(a) and (b) of the Public Service Employment Act (the PSEA), the complainant claims an abuse of authority in the application of merit and in the choice of a non-advertised appointment process in respect of an ENG-04 acting opportunity.
-
5.
Mehra v. Deputy Head (Statistics Canada) - 2025 FPSLREB 15 - 2025-02-11
FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing ComplaintsMootness
[1] This is a complaint from Rudy Mehra (“the complainant”) made under ss. 77(1)(a) and (b) of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; “the PSEA”). [...] He alleges that the deputy head of Statistics Canada (“the respondent”) abused its authority under ss. 30(2) and 33 of the PSEA. [2] The respondent maintains that there has been no abuse of authority. [...] It submitted that the Board’s powers are limited by ss. 81 and 82 of the PSEA and that the Board has no power to address what must be corrected in the future.
-
6.
Harkness v. Deputy Head (Correctional Service of Canada) - 2025 FPSLREB 7 - 2025-01-24
FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing ComplaintsApplication of Merit
Choice of process
Definition of abuse of authority
Discrimination - Disability
Personal Favouritism
Revocation of appointment by Commission or deputy head
23, 2021 to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (“the Board”), the complainant submits that the respondent, the deputy head of Correctional Services Canada (CSC), abused its authority under ss. 77(1)(a) and (b) of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; “the PSEA”). [...] [55] For all those reasons, I find that there was abuse of authority in the choice of a non-advertised process under s. 77(1)(b) of the PSEA. [56] Question 2: Did the respondent abuse its authority by improperly assessing the merit criteria? [...] Therefore, the respondent abused its authority under s. 77(1)(a) of the PSEA. [68] Question 3: Did the respondent abuse its authority by making the appointment based on personal favouritism?
-
7.
Verma v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police - 2025 FPSLREB 3 - 2025-01-09
FPSLREB Decisions - Labour RelationsCollective agreement
Workforce adjustment
[77] The same principles apply to the interpretation of the WFA Directive. [...] [78] In concluding that the grievor was not simultaneously a surplus and an opting employee, I interpreted the relevant provisions of the WFA Directive in the context of the FPSLRA, the PSEA, and the PSER. That legislation is incorporated by reference in the WFA Directive and therefore forms part of the collective [...] The power to declare an employee surplus is expressly conferred on the deputy head, and the Board has no oversight over identifying employees as surplus under the PSEA and PSER. [140] The deputy head did not declare the grievor surplus; therefore, she did not have surplus status.
-
8.
D’Angelo Prosperi v. Deputy Head (Canada Border Services Agency) - 2025 FPSLREB 1 - 2025-01-07
FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing ComplaintsApplication of Merit
Assessment of Qualifications
Choice of process
Definition of abuse of authority
[3] The complainant, Mary D’Angelo Prosperi, made a complaint with the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (“the Board”) under ss. 77(1)(a) and (b) of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; PSEA). [...] The PSEA states no preference between advertised or non-advertised appointment processes. [...] [95] That argument is not supported by the PSEA’s requirements or the jurisprudence of the Board and its predecessors.
-
9.
Rajab v. Chief Administrator of the Courts Administration Service - 2024 FPSLREB 181 - 2024-12-23
FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing ComplaintsOrder for provision of information request
In the matter of a complaint of abuse of authority - paragraph 77(1)(b) of the Public Service Employment Act Before: Christopher Rootham, a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board [...] This complaint was filed under s. 77(1)(b) of the PSEA, which means the sole issue in the complaint is whether the respondent abused its authority by choosing a non-advertised appointment process.
-
10.
Samson v. Deputy Head (Correctional Service of Canada) - 2024 FPSLREB 177 - 2024-12-13
FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing ComplaintsApplication of Merit
Bias / Reasonable Apprehension of Bias
Definition of abuse of authority
In support of its argument, the PSC refers me to section 1 of the Regulations and sections 77 and 81 of the PSEA. Indeed, according to section 81 of the PSEA, a corrective action order can only be made against the holder of the authority to appoint for the process in question. [...] This complaint is based on paragraph 77(1)(a) of the PSEA. Subsection 2(4) of the same Act defines what constitutes abuse of authority. [...] of bias constitutes an abuse of authority within the meaning of subsection 2(4) of the PSEA (see Denny, at para. 122; Bédard v. Deputy Minister of National Defence, 2010 PSST 15, at para. 51 (“Bédard 2010”); Amirault, at para. 77; Palmquist v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency, 2020 FPSLREB 6, at para. 77)
-
11.
Parker v. Deputy Head of the Public Service Commission - 2024 FPSLREB 171 - 2024-12-11
FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing ComplaintsApplication of Merit
Assessment of Qualifications
Choice of process
Definition of abuse of authority
Discrimination - Age
Discrimination - Colour
Discrimination - Race, National or Ethnic Origin
Personal Favouritism
[1] The complainant, Nadine Parker, made a complaint to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (“the Board”) under ss. 77(1)(a) and (b) of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; “PSEA”). [...] [68] Sections 77(1)(a) and (b) of the PSEA provide as follows: 77 (1) When the Commission has made or proposed an appointment in an internal appointment process, a person in the area of recourse referred to in subsection (2) may — in the manner and within the period provided by the Board’s regulations — make a complaint to [...] [77] The complainant argued that the director fettered her discretion by relying on the examination.
-
12.
Bolton v. Deputy Head (Department of Justice) - 2024 FPSLREB 165 - 2024-11-28
FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing ComplaintsAssessment of Qualifications
Bias / Reasonable Apprehension of Bias
Corrective Action
Definition of abuse of authority
Job opportunity advertisement
On September 24, 2018, she made a complaint to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (“the Board”) under s. 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; “PSEA”), alleging that the respondent abused its authority in the application of merit in the appointment process. [...] [152] Section 77 of the PSEA states that an unsuccessful candidate in the area of selection in an internal appointment process may complain to the Board that they were not appointed because of an abuse of authority in the application of merit by the deputy head in the exercise of its authority. [...] Accordingly, I find that the respondent abused its authority, contrary to s. 77(1)(a) of the PSEA. C. Corrective action [177] Section 81(1) of the PSEA outlines as follows the corrective action that can be ordered when the Board finds a complaint substantiated:
-
13.
Marston v. Deputy Head (Correctional Service of Canada) - 2024 FPSLREB 158 - 2024-11-18
FPSLREB Decisions - Labour RelationsCredibility
Discrimination
Human rights
Jurisdiction
Rejection on probation
Subsection 62(1) of the PSEA provides that an employer may terminate an employee’s employment during probation at the end of the notice period and that the employee ceases to be an employee at the end of that notice period. [...] Subsection 62(2) of the PSEA provides that the employer may also pay the employee monetary compensation equivalent to the value of the notice. [...] It is clear that the employer did not comply with the PSEA, but that failure does not confer substantive rights other than the right to obtain payment in lieu of notice, as should have been done from the start.
-
14.
Blair v. Deputy Head (Department of Public Works and Government Services) - 2024 FPSLREB 142 - 2024-10-17
FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing ComplaintsAssessment Methods
Assessment of Qualifications
Bias / Reasonable Apprehension of Bias
Definition of abuse of authority
Serious Act, Error, Omission or Improper Conduct
[3] On December 24, 2020, the complainant made this complaint with the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (“the Board”) under s. 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; “the PSEA”). [...] [92] Under section 80 of the PSEA, the Board may interpret and apply the CHRA when considering whether a complaint under s. 77 is substantiated. [...] [155] Section 81 of the PSEA specifies the remedial authority of the Board when a complaint is upheld.
-
15.
Munden v. Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police - 2024 FPSLREB 141 - 2024-10-17
FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing ComplaintsApplication of Merit
Choice of process
Definition of abuse of authority
She alleged that it abused its authority under ss. 77(1)(a) and (b) of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; PSEA) in the application of merit and in the choice of a non-advertised appointment process. [...] [108] The PSEA provides that an appointee’s qualifications must be assessed before an appointment decision is made. [...] The PSEA requires that persons in the area of recourse be notified of appointments made or proposed.
-
16.
Chung v. Deputy Head (Department of National Defence) - 2024 FPSLREB 133 - 2024-09-27
FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing Complaints[1] On July 4, 2021, Jin Gur Chung (“the complainant”) made a complaint to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (“the Board”) under ss. 77(1)(a) and (b) of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; PSEA). [...] The complainant alleged that an abuse of authority occurred in both the application of merit (under s. 77(1)(a) of the PSEA) and in the choice of a non-advertised process to make the appointment (under s. 77(1)(b)). [...] [113] As already noted, I find that the complainant did not substantiate his allegation that the appointment was made without merit, under s. 77(1(a) of the PSEA. [114] For all of the above reasons, the Board makes the following order:
-
17.
Simard v. Treasury Board (Department of Employment and Social Development) - 2024 FPSLREB 131 - 2024-09-25
FPSLREB Decisions - Labour RelationsSections 61 and 62 of the PSEA: 61 (1) A person appointed from outside the public service is a probation for a period [...] [260] Section 211(a) of the FPSLRA states that any individual grievance with respect to termination of employment under the PSEA cannot be referred to adjudication. The PSEA specifies that while an employee is on probation, the deputy head may notify the employee that his or her employment will be terminated at the end of [...] with respect to any termination of employment under the PSEA. [269] Relying on the sections cited above, case law and the termination letter, I conclude that the termination occurred under the PSEA. I must now determine whether the termination of employment was a contrived reliance on the PSEA, a sham or a camouflage.
-
18.
Sylvain v. Treasury Board (Department of National Defence) - 2024 FPSLREB 127 - 2024-09-16
FPSLREB Decisions - Labour RelationsJurisdiction
He made the same damages claim in his complaint under the PSEA. The Board determined that that remedy was not available in a complaint under the PSEA. The grievor also claimed damages under the Canadian Human Rights Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6; CHRA) in his grievance and complaint. [...] The Board held that s. 77 of the PSEA authorizes interpreting and applying the CHRA and that it grants the Board the power to order a remedy under ss. 53(2)(e) and 53(3) of the CHRA. The Board denied the grievance for lack of jurisdiction and allowed the complaint under the PSEA. [...] PSEA. The PSEA provides compensation to employees who are adversely affected by indeterminate appointments — either to the Public Service Commission if the appointment was made through an external appointment process (see s. 66 of the PSEA) or to the Board if it was made through an internal appointment process (see s. 77
-
19.
Choryhanna v. Deputy Head (Department of Natural Resources) - 2024 FPSLREB 117 - 2024-08-20
FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing ComplaintsChoice of process
Definition of abuse of authority
Non-advertised process
As for his contention that other employees could have been interested in the position, it does not meet the requirements of s. 77(1) of the PSEA: a person cannot complain that other persons were not, or could have been, appointed in an appointment process. [...] The Tribunal finds that the complainant had no standing and therefore no right to file a complaint to the Tribunal pursuant to s. 77 of the PSEA. The request to dismiss the complaint of Mr. Johnston is granted. [...] [19] The complainant seeks to raise what he sees as serious concerns regarding the safety of Canadians, however, the issue he raises does not fall within the scope of a staffing complaint under s. 77 of the PSEA. The Board cannot assume jurisdiction over matters outside its mandate.
-
20.
Abdi v. Treasury Board (Department of Employment and Social Development) - 2024 FPSLREB 114 - 2024-08-16
FPSLREB Decisions - Labour RelationsBy the authority delegated to me by the Deputy Minister, under section 62(1) of the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), I hereby give you notice as required by section 62 (2) of the PSEA, of my decision to terminate your employment during probation effective today. [...] You are entitled to a two-week notice period according to PSEA Regulations establishing Periods of Probation and Periods of Notice of Termination of Employment during Probation. [...] [77] The objection to jurisdiction (the March 15 objection) is dismissed.
-
21.
Desjardins v. Treasury Board (Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development) - 2024 FPSLREB 109 - 2024-08-13
FPSLREB Decisions - Labour RelationsIn addition, medical retirement was never approved by the responsible manager, as set out in s. 63 of the PSEA. [71] The grievances are not prescribed, since the grievor acted when she had access to the information that was central to them. [...] [72] She also learned only after the grievances were filed that her manager should have approved her medical retirement under s. 63 of the PSEA. In 2021, she asked questions, and no one from the employer could find the letter approving her medical retirement. [...] [77] The length of the delay filing the grievances can be explained by the fact that the grievor did not have access to the information.
-
22.
Ngueyo v. Deputy Head (Canada School of Public Service) - 2024 FPSLREB 107 - 2024-08-12
FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing ComplaintsApplication of Merit
Choice of process
Definition of abuse of authority
Discrimination - Race, National or Ethnic Origin
Discrimination - Sex
[2] The complainant made her complaint to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (“the Board”) under ss. 77(1)(a) and (b) of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; PSEA). [...] [77] First, I will address the complainant’s discrimination allegation with respect to the choice of process. [...] The respondent’s choice may be the subject of a complaint under s. 77(1)(b) of the PSEA. [79] The complainant argued that the respondent chose an advertised process to avoid appointing her to the position and to be able to exclude her from the process because she is a Black woman.
-
23.
Harnois v. Deputy Head (Deputy Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities - 2024 FPSLREB 106 - 2024-08-02
FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing ComplaintsIn the matter of a complaint of abuse of authority made under s. 77(1)(b) of the Public Service Employment Act Before: Guy Giguère, a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board [...] [1] On January 18, 2017, Stéphanie Harnois (“the complainant”) made a complaint under s. 77 of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; PSEA) about two appointments involving the advertised appointment process numbered 16‐MOT‐IA-HRS-85093 (“the 2016 process”). [...] [77] In this case, although she had the qualification, a candidate was penalized because a referee did not provide details or elaborate and did not use items from the definition.
-
24.
Goulet v. Deputy Head (Department of National Defence) - 2024 FPSLREB 104 - 2024-07-30
FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing ComplaintsApplication of Merit
Assessment of Qualifications
Bias / Reasonable Apprehension of Bias
Choice of process
[1] Stéphane Goulet (“the complainant”) made a complaint against the deputy head of the Department of National Defence (“the respondent” or DND) under ss. 77(1)(a) and (b) of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; PSEA). [...] The PSEA allows for such flexibility (see Haller v. Deputy Head (Department of National Defence), 2022 FPSLREB 100 at para. 70). [...] The PSEA provides delegated managers with the flexibility they need to meet pressing operational needs (see the PSEA’s preamble).
-
25.
Chaston v. Deputy Head (Canada Border Services Agency) - 2024 FPSLREB 96 - 2024-07-18
FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing ComplaintsApplication of Merit
Definition of abuse of authority
[1] The complainant, Anthony Chaston, made a complaint to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (“the Board”) under s. 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; “PSEA”). [...] [22] This complaint was made under s. 77(1)(a) of the PSEA. It provides as follows: 77 (1) When the Commission has made or proposed an appointment in an internal appointment process, a person in the area of recourse referred to in subsection (2) may — in the manner and within the period provided by the Board’s regulations — [...] [29] As set out in s. 30(2) of the PSEA, an appointed person must meet the essential qualifications established for a position.