Advanced Search

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].

Rinn v. Deputy Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities et al. - 2007 PSST 0044 - 2007-11-26

For the Tribunal, the starting point for the analysis is the applicable provisions of the PSEA. 33 This complaint was filed under paragraph 77(1)(a) of the PSEA which refers to the criteria for making an appointment on the basis of merit under subsection 30(2) of the PSEA. These provisionsshould be read together, and are as  [...]  Paragraph 77(1)(a) of the PSEA provides for recourse against an abuse of authority by the PSC or the deputy head in making an appointment under subsection 30(2).   [...]  Recourse under paragraph 77(1)(a) of the PSEA addresses this appointment issue, namely, whether an appointment or proposed appointment is made on the basis of merit.

Doraiswamy v. Deputy Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities - 2011 PSST 0035 - 2011-11-24

5 On February 25, 2011, the complainant filed a complaint with the Tribunal pursuant to s. 77(1) of the PSEA concerning a non-advertised acting appointment to a TI-07 Senior Marine Safety Inspector position.   [...]  The Tribunal has uniformly held that for a complaint to be brought under s. 77 of the PSEA, it must be the complainant himself or herself who is claiming that he or she was not appointed or proposed for appointment because of an abuse of authority.   [...]  On this basis, the Tribunal finds that the complainant has not established that he has the right to file a complaint to the Tribunal under s. 77 of the PSEA. 18 The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider and dispose of this complaint.

Thompson v. Deputy Head (Department of Employment and Social Development) - 2022 FPSLREB 90 - 2022-11-02

[81] The complaint was made under s. 77(1)(a) of the PSEA, which refers to s. 30(2). Those provisions read as follows:   [...]  [85] Furthermore, paragraph 77 of Jolin states: [77] Section 36 of the PSEA provides that the deputy head may use any assessment method that he or she considers appropriate in an internal appointment process.   [...]  [91] The complaint was also made under s. 77(1)(b) of the PSEA, which provides the following right of recourse when the choice of appointment process is in dispute:

Czarnecki v. Deputy Head of Service Canada et al. - 2007 PSST 0001 - 2007-01-17

4 She was eliminated from the selection process and filed a complaint with the Tribunal on September 20, 2006 under section 77 of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13 (the PSEA).   [...]  8 Her complaint filed under section 77 of the PSEA alleges that the selection board minimized her total mark in this area as the answers she provided met the required answer “at least at a good level.”   [...]  15 The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is found in subsection 88(2) of the PSEA: 88. (...) (2) The mandate of the Tribunal is to consider and dispose of complaints made under subsection 65(1) and sections 74, 77 and 83.

Maides v. Deputy Minister of Natural Resources Canada et al. - 2007 PSST 0041 - 2007-11-19

section 77 of the PSEA? 24 In its second motion related to Mr. Maides’ complaint concerning the second appointment process, the respondent submits that this appointment process resulted in the appointment of a priority employee under section 41 of the PSEA and, as such, in accordance with section 87 of the PSEA, there is  [...]  27 Clearly, there is no right to complain to the Tribunal under section 77 of the PSEA in respect of the appointment of an employee with a leave of absence priority entitlement.   [...]  28 Since the person appointed in the second appointment process had priority entitlement by virtue of section 41 of the PSEA, the Tribunal finds, pursuant to section 87 of the PSEA, that there is no right to complain under section 77 of the PSEA in respect of her appointment.

Anwar v. The Chief Public Health Officer of the Public Health Agency of Canada - 2011 PSST 0024 - 2011-09-09

Three of the complaints were filed pursuant to s. 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13 (PSEA) and allege that he was not appointed as a result of an abuse of authority.   [...]  20 The PSC notes that, although the PSEA does not define what constitutes an appointment, s. 56(1) of the PSEA specifies that it "takes effect on the date agreed to in writing by that person and the deputy head, regardless of the date of their agreement."   [...]  Section 77(1) of the PSEA provides that when the Commission "has made or proposed an appointment (...) a person (...) may (...) make a complaint to the Tribunal (...)".

Agnew v. Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans - 2018 FPSLREB 2 - 2018-01-05

5 According to the respondent, s. 77 of the PSEA offers recourse only to persons in the area of recourse, as defined under s. 77(2).   [...]  Consequently, the Board finds that the complainant is an unsuccessful candidate within the meaning of s. 77(2) of the PSEA. She therefore has the right to file a complaint pursuant to s. 77(1).   [...]  The language has changed — now, per s. 77 of the PSEA, “... a person in the area of recourse ...” can bring a complaint.

Dayton v. Deputy Minister of National Defence et al. - 2009 PSST 0020 - 2009-07-03

7The complainant filed his complaint pursuant to paragraphs 77(1)(a) and (b) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c.22, ss.12, 13 (the PSEA) on August 6, 2008.   [...]  14The respondent argues that to file a complaint of abuse of authority under section 77 of the PSEA, a person must be in the area of selection and an unsuccessful candidate.   [...]  20A person’s right to file a complaint concerning an internal appointment process is governed by section 77 of the PSEA. As the Tribunal held in Hagerty, at paragraph 10: “Under section 77 of the PSEA, an unsuccessful candidate in an internal advertised appointment process has the right to complain that he or she was not

Hammond et al. v. Deputy Head of Service Canada et al. - 2008 PSST 0008 - 2008-04-01

2. Is it an abuse of authority under paragraph 77(1)(a) of the PSEA for a manager to decline to provide a reference for an employee?   [...]  Issue II: Is it an abuse of authority under paragraph 77(1)(a) of the PSEA for a manager to decline to provide a reference for an employee?   [...]  The complainants simply state that abuse of authority under section 77 of the PSEA encompasses the actions of any delegate of the Deputy Head in the exercise of his or her responsibilities within a staffing process.

Visca v. Deputy Minister of Justice et al. - 2007 PSST 0024 - 2007-05-31

On August 22, 2006 Mr. Visca filed a complaint with the Public Service Staffing Tribunal (the Tribunal) under paragraph 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13 (the PSEA).   [...]  33 This complaint was filed under paragraph 77(1)(a) of the PSEA which refers to subsection 30(2) of the PSEA. These provisions read as follows:   [...]  However, as the Tribunal found in Jolin, supra, this discretion is not absolute and a person who was not appointed can complain under paragraph 77(1)(a) of the PSEA that there was an abuse of authority in the selection and use of an assessment method.

Jacobsen v. Deputy Minister of Environment Canada et al. - 2009 PSST 0008 - 2009-03-18

2On January 22, 2008, he filed a complaint under paragraph 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13 (PSEA).   [...]  14The complaint was filed under paragraph 77(1)(a) of the PSEA: 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   [...]  Failure to consider this information, he submits, constitutes an abuse of authority under paragraph 77(1)(a) of the PSEA. 46In Tibbs v. Deputy Minister of National Defence et al., [2006] PSST 0008, the Tribunal stated that the five categories of abuse outlined in Jones and de Villars, including “when a delegate acts on

Kosowan et al. v. Deputy Minister of Health Canada et al. - 2009 PSST 0024 - 2009-08-04

5Each of the complainants filed a complaint to the Public Service Staffing Tribunal (the Tribunal) under section 77 of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12,13 (the PSEA).   [...]  51However, this does not mean that the PSEA provides absolute discretion. Paragraph 77(1)(b) of the PSEA provides for a direct challenge of the discretionary choice between an advertised and a non-advertised appointment process, on the ground of abuse of authority.   [...]  52The Tribunal has determined that, for a complaint under paragraph 77(1)(b) of the PSEA to be successful, a complainant must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the choice to use a non-advertised appointment process was an abuse of authority.