Advanced Search

Tran v. Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police - 2009 PSST 0031 - 2009-12-01

Complaint of abuse of authority pursuant to paragraph 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act Decision: Complaint is dismissed   [...]  6The complainant filed her complaint of abuse of authority with the Public Service Staffing Tribunal (the Tribunal) on January 29, 2008 under paragraph 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13 (the PSEA).   [...]  77Having passed Ms. Lam and the third candidate, Ms. Bozza and Mr. Lionetti assigned each of them a mark of five.

Spurrell v. Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions - 2003 PSSRB 15 - 2003-02-24

He stated that the authority to do so has been delegated to him by the Deputy Minister pursuant to the PSEA. The decision to reject the grievor was made following consultations with Ms. Tam and Ms. Dimanis.   [...]   suitability of the employee and, as such, was acting in accordance with the provisions of the PSEA.. [67] Once the employer has done so, then the burden of proof shifts to the grievor to demonstrate that the employer's actions are in fact a sham or a camouflage, and therefore not in accordance with section 28 of the PSEA.   [...]  [77] Relying on the principles enunciated in the decision of Lemieux J in Leonarduzzi (supra), I am satisfied that the employer has established that the decision to reject the grievor on probation was "for an employment-related reason, i.e. a dissatisfaction with the suitability of the employee".

Wrobel v. Deputy Head (Canada Border Services Agency) - 2021 FPSLREB 14 - 2021-02-15

[74] Section 62 of the PSEA provides that the deputy head of an organization may terminate the employment of an employee on probation by providing notice to the employee.   [...]  [77] The evidence demonstrated that the grievor was shown his shortcomings and that he failed to correct them.   [...]   the deputy head’s contrived reliance on the new PSEA or that the rejection on probation was a sham or a camouflage. A termination of employment not based on a bona fide dissatisfaction as to suitability (or for no legitimate “employment-related reason”) would be a contrived reliance on the PSEA, a sham or a camouflage.

Langlois v. Deputy Head (Department of Employment and Social Development) - 2023 FPSLREB 24 - 2023-03-03

In the matter of a complaint of abuse of authority under section 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act Before: Marie-Claire Perrault, a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board   [...]  [32] “Abuse of authority” is not defined in the PSEA other than stating that it includes bad faith and personal favouritism (s. 2(4)).   [...]  [37] The deputy head (or a delegate) determines the assessment methods (s. 36 of the PSEA). In this case, the ability to create a vision was assessed orally, during the interview, as set out in the marking guide and assessment plan.

Abdi v. Treasury Board (Department of Employment and Social Development) - 2024 FPSLREB 114 - 2024-08-16

By 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.

Harrington v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency - 2020 FPSLREB 113 - 2020-12-14

He alleged that the respondent, the President of the CBSA, abused its authority pursuant to s. 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12 and 13; “the PSEA”).   [...]  It submitted that an assessment board may choose its assessment tools, as set out in the PSEA. Specifically, s. 36 of the PSEA provides those with staffing authority the broad discretion to choose and use assessment methods to determine if a person meets the established qualifications.   [...]  [139] Section 77(1) of the PSEA provides that a person in the area of recourse may make a complaint to the Board 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.

Béland-Falardeau v. Chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board - 2014 PSST 18 - 2014-10-31

Complaint of abuse of pursuant to paragraph 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act Decision: CThe complaint is dismissed   [...]  9 On December 20, 2012, the complainant brought a complaint of abuse of authority to the Public Service Staffing Tribunal (PSST) under paragraph 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12 and 13 (PSEA).   [...]  10 Section 77(1) of the PSEA provides that a person in the area of recourse may file a complaint with the Tribunal that he or she was not appointed or proposed for appointment because of an abuse of authority.

Shura v. Chairperson of the Parole Board of Canada - 2020 FPSLREB 26 - 2020-03-04

[4] The complaint was made on April 12, 2017, under s. 77 of the PSEA. It alleged that the PBC’s deputy head abused its authority under s. 30(2), specifically in the application of merit when it appointed the appointee.   [...]  [68] The respondent submitted that with respect to the complainant’s ongoing references to other staffing processes, the PSEA establishes the statutory and regulatory conditions for making a complaint.   [...]  [77] On January 3, 2020, the PSC informed the Board that it did not take a position on the motion to dismiss.

Daoust v. Deputy Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness - 2018 FPSLREB 10 - 2018-02-05

In the matter of a complaint of abuse of authority in the application of merit - paragraph 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act Before: Nathalie Daigle, a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board   [...]  The complainant made a complaint about this appointment under s. 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; PSEA) to the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board on February 2, 2016.   [...]  It also confirmed that its written submission did not include factual evidence and that it was simply a review of the PSEA and related policy issues. The PSC confirmed that the Board had been advised in advance that it would not attend the hearing.

Ricard v. Canada Border Services Agency - 2014 PSLRB 72 - 2014-07-21

However, under the new PSEA, the burden of proof has shifted to grievors to demonstrate that their rejection on probation was a "sham" or a "camouflage" or a contrived reliance on the PSEA, rather than a bona fide dissatisfaction with their suitability for the position in question.   [...]  106 The PSEA provides for rejection on probation in section 62, which states as follows:   [...]  Under section 28 of the former PSEA (R.S.C., 1985, c. P-33), rejection on probation was "for cause." Under section 62 of the new PSEA, the requirement that the rejection on probation be "for cause" was removed.

Ghafari v. Deputy Head (Statistics Canada) - 2025 FPSLREB 18 - 2025-02-19

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.

Morin v. Treasury Board (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) - 2004 PSSRB 168 - 2004-12-03

[3] The employer argues that Mr. Morin was on probation at the time of his rejection and is subject to section 28 of the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA) because candidates are on probation for the entire period of their training, which does not end until the candidate is promoted to a fishery officer position at the   [...]  In addition, section 28 of the PSEA covering rejection on probation requires 30-days’ notice, which would mean that, in this case, advance notice should have been given to him, at the latest, on May 12, 2000.   [...]  [27] Accordingly, Mr. Morin was on probation and section 28 of the PSEA applies. The preliminary objection is denied. Sylvie Matteau, Deputy Chairperson

Green v. Deputy Minister of National Defence - 2018 FPSLREB 69 - 2018-08-21

8 On December 16, 2015, the complainant filed a complaint of abuse of authority with the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board under s. 77 of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; PSEA).   [...]  56 Section 77(1) of the PSEA provides that a person in the area of recourse may make a complaint to the Board that he or she was not appointed or proposed for appointment because of abuse of authority.   [...]  77 More precisely, Mr. Gingras was doing his job when he called the WCB at management’s request.