Advanced Search

Ben Achour v. Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada - 2012 PSST 0024 - 2012-09-20

7 On February 23, 2010, each of the complainants filed a complaint of abuse of authority with the Tribunal in relation to the eight appointments at Leclerc Institution, pursuant to section 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12 and 13 (the PSEA).   [...]  11 Section 77(1) of the PSEA states that a person in the area of recourse may make a complaint alleging that he or she was not appointed or proposed for appointment because the PSC or the deputy head abused its authority in the appointment process.   [...]  68 Pursuant to section 80 of the PSEA, in considering whether a complaint under section 77 is substantiated, the Tribunal may interpret and apply the CHRA.

Taticek v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency - 2012 PSST 0015 - 2012-06-15

Complaint of abuse of authority pursuant to section 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act Decision: Complaints are dismissed   [...]  6 The complainant brought 15 complaints under para. 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12 and 13 (the PSEA) concerning this appointment process.   [...]  16 Section 99(1)(d) of the PSEA allows the Tribunal to accept any evidence, whether admissible in a court of law or not.

Praught and Pellicore v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency et al. - 2009 PSST 0001 - 2009-01-19

They filed complaints with the Public Service Staffing Tribunal (the Tribunal) under paragraph 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act (the PSEA)S.C. 2003, c.22, ss. 12 and 13.   [...]  69 These complaints were filed under paragraph 77(1)(a) of the PSEA, which provides employees with a right to make a complaint to the Tribunal on the grounds of “an abuse of authority by the Commission or the deputy head in the exercise of its or his or her authority under subsection 30(2).” Subsection 30(2) reads as   [...]  The Tribunal concludes that Mr. Williams was not exercising authority under subsection 30(2) of the PSEA when he decided to amend the condition of employment relating to CDT. Thus, this amendment is not subject to a complaint of abuse of authority under section 77 of the PSEA and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this

Laroche et al. v. Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade et al. - 2009 PSST 0017 - 2009-06-11

2These complaints were filed under paragraphs 77(1)(a) and (b) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12 and 13 (the PSEA), subsequent to appointments or proposed appointments to Jurilinguist positions, at the SI-06 group and level (process no.: 08‑EXT-INA-MSH-412737, 08-EXT-INA-MSH-412744 and   [...]  7Section 79 of the PSEA stipulates who is entitled to be heard by the Tribunal in a complaint under section 77:   [...]  12“Party” is defined in subsection 1(1) of the PSST Regulations as anyone who has the right to be heard by the Tribunal under the PSEA. Section 79 of the PSEA identifies the parties that have that right in respect of a complaint regarding an internal appointment under section 77.

Lirette v. Deputy Minister of National Defence - 2011 PSST 0042 - 2011-12-29

11 The complainant filed her complaint with the Tribunal on June 9, 2010, under s. 77 of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13 (the PSEA).   [...]  31 The complainant alleges that the respondent abused its authority within the meaning of s. 77(1)(a) of the PSEA when it failed to conduct an informal discussion in accordance with the requirements of the PSC Informal Discussion Policy.   [...]  39 However, the Tribunal finds that this omission alone does not establish that the respondent abused its authority in the assessment of merit in this process, within the meaning of s. 77(1)(a) of the PSEA. The respondent's failure to properly conduct an informal discussion after the complainant was screened out had no

Lablack v. Deputy Minister of Health Canada - 2013 PSST 7 - 2013-03-06

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.   [...]  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.   [...]  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).

Pond v. Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development - 2015 PSLREB 44 - 2015-05-14

Complaint of abuse of authority pursuant to s. 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act Decision: The complaint is dismissed   [...]  The complainant filed a complaint of abuse of authority with the Public Service Staffing Tribunal (PSST) under s. 77 of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12,13 (PSEA) on July 4, 2013.   [...]  11Section 77 of the PSEA provides that an unsuccessful candidate in the area of selection for an internal advertised appointment process may file a complaint with the Board that he or she was not appointed or proposed for appointment because of an abuse of authority.

Tran v. Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police - 2012 PSST 0003 - 2012-02-17

25 The term "surplus" does not appear in any provision of the PSEA. It does, however, appear in the marginal note next to s. 40 of the PSEA. The surplus period described in s. 40 of the PSEA starts after the employee is informed by the deputy head that they will be laid off and ends when lay-off becomes effective.   [...]  Under the PSEA, the term surplus is linked solely to the eventual lay-off of an employee.   [...]  The Tribunal's role in considering a complaint under s. 65(1) of the PSEA is similar to its role in considering a complaint under s. 77(1) of the PSEA, where the Tribunal will determine whether a complainant was not appointed or proposed for appointment by reason of an abuse of authority.

Steeves and Sveinson v. Deputy Minister of National Defence - 2011 PSST 0009 - 2011-02-21

7 The complainants filed complaints of abuse of authority with the Public Service Staffing Tribunal (the Tribunal) pursuant to s. 77 of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss.12, 13 (the PSEA).   [...]  Under the PSEA, the respondent was not required to appoint Ms. Sveinson based on employment equity.   [...]  There is no requirement in the PSEA or in PSC policy to document the reasons for not selecting candidates.

Gabon v. Deputy Minister of Environment Canada - 2012 PSST 0029 - 2012-11-05

7 The complainant filed a complaint of abuse of authority with the Tribunal on September 27, 2010 under s. 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss.12, 13 (PSEA).   [...]  60 Section 80 of the PSEA provides that in determining whether a complaint is substantiated under s. 77, the Tribunal may interpret and apply the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6 (CHRA).   [...]  While it would have been preferable that the Board Chair respond to the meeting request in a more timely fashion, the delay in this case in providing informal discussion does not amount to an abuse of authority under s. 77(1)(a) of the PSEA. See, for example, Agboton v. President of the Public Service Commission, 2010 PSST

Morrissette v. Deputy Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities - 2012 PSST 0005 - 2012-02-29

8 On August 26, 2009, the complainant filed a complaint of abuse of authority under s. 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c.22, ss. 12, 13 (the PSEA), with the Public Service Staffing Tribunal (the Tribunal).   [...]  20 Section 77(1)(a) of the PSEA provides that a person in the area of recourse may make a complaint to the Tribunal that he or she was not appointed or proposed for appointment because the PSC or the deputy head abused its authority in the appointment process.   [...]  In this case, the complainant is alleging under paragraph 77(1)(a) of the PSEA that she was not appointed by reason of abuse of authority when the deputy head exercised his or her authority under subsection 30(2) in the appointment of Ms. Pennington.

Ouellet v. President of the Canadian International Development Agency et al. - 2009 PSST 0026 - 2009-08-24

Decision: The PSEA provides deputy heads with a broad discretion in the choice and use of assessment methods.   [...]  Complaint of abuse of authority pursuant to paragraph 77(1)(b) of the Public Service Employment Act Decision: Complaint is dismissed   [...]  1On August 28, 2008, the complainant, Jean Pierre Ouellet, 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) in which he alleges abuse of authority by the respondent, the President of the Canadian

Célidon v. Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada et al. - 2007 PSST 0016 - 2007-04-19

3 In accordance with subsection 99(3) of the PSEA, the Tribunal has rendered a decision on these two requests for the provision of information without holding an oral hearing.   [...]  11 Subsection 29(3) of the PSEA states: “The Commission may establish policies respecting the manner of making and revoking appointments and taking corrective action.” (emphasis added)   [...]  19 Section 77 reads: 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 Tribunal’s regulations — make a complaint to the Tribunal that he or she was not