Advanced Search

Murray v. Chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada et al. - 2009 PSST 0033 - 2009-12-21

Both were filed under section 77of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13 (the PSEA) and concern appointment process number 07-IRB-INA-03-13392.   [...]  This complaint was filed under paragraph 77(1)(b) of the PSEA, which relates to abuse of authority in the choice of process.   [...]  When sections 77, 80 and 81 of the PSEA are read together, it is clear that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider human rights issues and apply the CHRA. The complainant submits that the PSEA makes no distinction between discrimination and cases of systemic discrimination.

Marin-Lazarescu v. President of Shared Services Canada - 2020 FPSLREB 52 - 2020-05-14

The PSEA gives no preference to advertised over non-advertised processes. Nevertheless, in s. 77(1)(b), it provides for a direct challenge of that discretionary choice on the ground of abuse of authority.   [...]  Nevertheless, s. 77(1)(b) of the PSEA provides for a direct challenge of the discretionary choice between an advertised and non-advertised process, on the ground of abuse of authority.   [...]  For a complaint under s. 77(1)(b) of the PSEA to be successful, the complainant must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the choice to use a non-advertised process was an abuse of authority....

Chaves v. Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada et al. - 2007 PSST 0009 - 2007-03-21

1 The complainant seeks an order from the Public Service Staffing Tribunal (the Tribunal) for the provision of information relating to a complaint filed pursuant to subsection 77(1) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13 (the PSEA).   [...]  26 The Tribunal finds that the acting appointments of J. Rutley, K. White, M. Tudor, K. Patterson, and A. Vanhorn were all made under the PSEA. Since these acting appointments extended the cumulative period to more than four months, these acting appointments are subject to complaint under section 77 of the PSEA.   [...]  Neither the PSEA nor the PSER specify how the notice must be conveyed to persons in the area of recourse.

Huard v. Deputy Head (Office of Infrastructure of Canada) - 2023 FPSLREB 9 - 2023-01-27

[38] The Public Service Commission (PSC), which is always a party to complaints under s. 77 of the PSEA, filed a submission on the general concept of abuse of authority as well as on the appointment process.   [...]  Section 77 of the PSEA reads as follows: 77 (1) When the Commission [PSC] 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 the Board that   [...]  [129] In conclusion, I now return to the wording of s. 77 of the PSEA, which offers recourse to a person who was not appointed as a result of abuse of authority.

Hagerty v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency et al. - 2007 PSST 0036 - 2007-08-02

2 On March 27, 2007, Wayne Hagerty, the complainant, filed a complaint with the Tribunal pursuant to subsection 77(1) of the PSEA, concerning appointment process number 06–BSF–IDA–GTA–GTEC–PM–002.   [...]  The respondent bases its position on the argument that section 77 of the PSEA permits a person to complain that he or she was not appointed or proposed for appointment.   [...]  9 The sections of the PSEA that are relevant to this issue are sections 48 and 77. They read, in part:

Ait Lahcen v. Commissioner of Correctional Service of Canada et al. - 2009 PSST 0013 - 2009-04-03

2The complainant filed his complaint pursuant to section 77 of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12 and 13 (the PSEA).   [...]  6The respondent asserts that the complainant has no grounds to file a complaint under section 77 of the PSEA.It therefore requests that the complaint be dismissed on the ground that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider or dispose of the complaint.   [...]  8The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is circumscribed by its enabling legislation, the PSEA. Subsection 77(1) of the PSEA provides that a person in the area of recourse may make a complaint to the Tribunal where there has been an appointment or a proposed appointment.Subsections 77(1) and (2) of the PSEA read as follows:

Brown v. Union of Solicitor General Employees and Edmunds - 2013 PSLRB 48 - 2013-04-30

The employer, which is defined by subsection 2(1) of the PSEA as the Treasury Board, has limited power under the PSEA with respect to the appointment process, which is only setting the qualification standards for potential candidates.   [...]  58 Neither “employee organization” nor “bargaining agent” is defined in the PSEA. 59 Subsection 88(2) of the PSEA sets out the mandate of the PSST, which is to consider and dispose of complaints made under subsection 65(1) and sections 74, 77 and 83 of the PSEA.   [...]  62 Subsection 77(1)of the PSEA states 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 Tribunal’s regulations – make a complaint to the

Lavigne v. Deputy Minister of Justice et al. - 2007 PSST 0045 - 2007-11-28

25 The complainant filed his complaint under paragraph 77(1)(a) of the PSEA against the acting appointment of Ms. Shaughnessy for the period of October 9, 2007 to February 1, 2008, a period of less than four months.   [...]   period of the acting appointment of a person in a position to four months or more, is excluded from the application of sections 30 and 77 of the Act. [Emphasis added] 27 The PSER clearly states that the right of complaint under sections 30 and 77 of the PSEA does not apply to acting appointments of less than four months.   [...]  [11] Section 14 of the PSER specifically excludes acting appointments of less than four months from the application of section 77 of the PSEA, the section which sets out the right to complain to the Tribunal.

Trachy v. Deputy Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities et al. - 2008 PSST 0002 - 2008-01-28

1 On October 13, 2006, Denise Trachy filed a complaint with the Public Service Staffing Tribunal (the Tribunal) pursuant to paragraph 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12 and 13 (the PSEA).   [...]  40 The complaint was made pursuant to paragraph 77(1)(a) of the PSEA, which reads 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 Tribunal’s  [...]  43 The Tribunal has dealt with assessment methods in Jolin v. Deputy Head of Service Canada et al., [2007] PSST 0011, more specifically in paragraph 77, which reads as follows: [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

Chaves v. Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada et al. - 2008 PSST 0003 - 2008-02-04

On August 31, 2006, the complainant filed a complaint with the Public Service Staffing Tribunal (the Tribunal) under paragraph 77(1)(b) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c.22, ss.12, 13 (the PSEA).   [...]  The staffing process was never, in their mind, treated as a process subject to the PSEA. They always considered the process as being under the old PSEA, which explains why no right to complain was issued in accordance with the PSEA.   [...]  41 The complaint was made under paragraphs 77(1)(a) and (b) of the PSEA. Subsection 77(1) of the PSEA reads as follows:

Comeau v. Deputy Head of Service Canada et al. - 2007 PSST 0047 - 2007-12-14

12 The respondent argues that under subsection 59(2) of the PSEA, a conversion of tenure from term to indeterminate made pursuant to subsection 59(1) of the PSEA does not constitute an appointment.   [...]  (2) A conversion under subsection (1) does not constitute an appointment or a deployment or entitle any person to make a complaint under section 77. [Emphasis added] 17 It is therefore clear that under subsection 59(2) of the PSEA, a conversion of tenure from term to indeterminate does not constitute an appointment.   [...]  The complaint does not meet the requirements for a right of recourse under section 74 of the PSEA. 19 In addition, under subsection 88(2) of the PSEA, the Tribunal's mandate is to "consider and dispose of complaints made under subsection 65(1) and sections 74, 77 and 83."

Casper v. Deputy Minister of Citizenship and Immigration - 2016 PSLREB 49 - 2016-06-10

The complaint was filed with the former Public Service Staffing Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) under s. 77 of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12 and 13; PSEA).   [...]  18 Although the term “unsuccessful candidate” is not defined, it is used in s. 77(2)(a) of the PSEA to describe those who have recourse in an internal advertised appointment process.   [...]  34 Section 77(2)(a) of the PSEA stipulates that in an internal advertised appointment process, only an unsuccessful candidate in the area of selection can file a complaint under s. 77(1).

Parliament v. Deputy Minister of Public Works and Government Services - 2020 FPSLREB 118 - 2020-12-21

[66] Section 77 of the PSEA provides that an unsuccessful candidate in an advertised internal appointment process may make a complaint with the Board that he or she was not appointed or proposed for appointment because of an abuse of authority.   [...]  In addition, I note that the Tribunal uniformly held in several decisions that for a complaint to be made under s. 77 of the PSEA, the complainant himself or herself must claim that he or she was not appointed or proposed for appointment because of an abuse of authority.   [...]  [102] The complaint was made under s. 77(1)(a) of the PSEA, which refers to s. 30(2). These provisions read as follows: