Advanced Search

Maxwell v. Deputy Minister of National Defence - 2011 PSST 0021 - 2011-08-03

The complainant filed a complaint under s. 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12,13 (the PSEA) on October 14, 2009.   [...]  15 The Tribunal has no jurisdiction, under s. 77(1) (a) of the PSEA, to hear complaints involving external appointment processes.   [...]  She therefore meets the requirements of s. 77(1) (a) of the PSEA and has the right to file a complaint of abuse of authority concerning this appointment.

Kavanagh v. President of Shared Services Canada - 2017 FPSLREB 38 - 2017-11-10

On February 23, 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).   [...]  28 Subsection 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.   [...]  The authority to determine the area of selection is found in s. 34 of the PSEA. Section 77, which provides for recourse to the Board for appointment processes, does not refer to s. 34.

King v. Deputy Head of Service Canada et al. - 2008 PSST 0006 - 2008-02-27

1 Ms. Marilyn King 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).   [...]  34 The complainant has failed to meet the burden as required under section 77 of the PSEA. The complaint should be dismissed. C) Public Service Commission’s arguments   [...]  The complainant must therefore demonstrate that the respondent abused its authority under subsection 30(2) of the PSEA when it eliminated her from the assessment process. 42 Subsection 30(2) of the PSEA reads as follows:

Viggers v. Deputy Head (Department of National Defence) - 2024 FPSLREB 34 - 2024-03-18

[1] On April 8, 2019, Derek Viggers (“the complainant”) made two complaints 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”).   [...]  [53] The PSC, which is a party to complaints made under s. 77 of the PSEA, provided written submissions in advance of the hearing on the general concept of abuse of authority as well as on the appointment process.   [...]  [81] Section 77(1)(b) of the PSEA provides the complainant with the ability to make a complaint to the Board if, in his opinion, the respondent abused its authority when it chose to proceed by way of a non-advertised process instead of an advertised process.

Hammouch v. Deputy Minister of National Defence - 2012 PSST 0012 - 2012-05-17

On February 18, 2010, the complainant submitted a complaint of abuse of authority to the Tribunal pursuant to sections 77(1)(a), (b)and (c) of the PSEA in relation to this acting appointment.   [...]  15 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.   [...]  70 Pursuant to section 80 of the PSEA, in determining whether a complaint under section 77 is substantiated, the Tribunal may interpret and apply the CHRA.

Broughton v. Deputy Minister of Public Works and Government Services et al. - 2007 PSST 0020 - 2007-05-02

1 On July 30, 2006, the complainant, Mr. Carl Broughton filed a complaint with the Public Service Staffing Tribunal (the Tribunal) under subsection 77(1) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13 (the PSEA).   [...]  21 Subsection 99(3) of the PSEA provides that the Tribunal may decide a complaint without holding an oral hearing.   [...]  [48] Although the PSEA gives the Tribunal broad powers in relation to any matter before it, it is not an investigative body.

Turner v. Deputy Head (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) - 2021 FPSLREB 52 - 2021-05-11

[62] An examination of the preamble of the PSEA helps to reveal its legislative purpose. The preamble of the PSEA is clear and of considerable assistance in interpreting the concept of abuse of authority.   [...]  For example, under section 67 of the PSEA, the grounds for revocation of an appointment by a deputy head after an investigation are error, omission and improper conduct.   [...]  [50] Furthermore, s. 30 of the PSEA provides as follows that there is no need to go through a selection process and interviews many people to make an appointment:

Lau v. Chief Administrator of the Courts Administration Service - 2023 FPSLREB 13 - 2023-02-10

[19] The respondent argued that pursuant to s. 77(2)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; “the PSEA”), when an appointment is made or proposed, an unsuccessful candidate in the area of selection may make a complaint to the Board.   [...]  [31] The right to make a complaint to the Board is set out at ss. 77(1) and (2) of the PSEA as follows: Complaints to Board — Internal Appointments   [...]  [32] Breaking this down, what s. 77(1) says is that “[w]hen the Commission has made or proposed an appointment in an internal appointment process ...”, a person may make a complaint if “... he or she was not appointed or proposed for appointment ...” (for the reasons set out at ss. 77(1)(a) to (c)).

Srivastava v. Deputy Head (Department of Health) - 2024 FPSLREB 1 - 2024-01-03

[1] The complainant, Sabita Srivastava, made a complaint under ss. 77(1)(a) and (b) of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; “PSEA”), alleging abuse of authority by the respondent, the deputy head of the Department of Health.   [...]  [82] As for discrimination against the complainant, s. 80 of the PSEA provides that when considering whether a complaint under s. 77 is substantiated, the Board may interpret and apply the Canadian Human Rights Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6; “CHRA”).   [...]  To succeed in a complaint made under s. 77(1)(b) of the PSEA, a complainant must demonstrate that the choice of an advertised appointment process was an abuse of authority.

Brunet v. Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police - 2011 PSST 0030 - 2011-10-17

2 On December 5, 2008, she filed a complaint with the Public Service Staffing Tribunal (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) with regard to Medgine Jean's initial acting appointment from November 24, 2008, to March 31, 2009.   [...]  13 The complainant filed a complaint alleging abuse of authority pursuant to s. 77(1) (a) of the PSEA. The PSEA does not define "abuse of authority", but s. 2(4) explains that it includes "bad faith and personal favouritism."   [...]  16 Section 77(1)(a) of the PSEA states that a person in the area of recourse of an advertised internal appointment may make a complaint to the Tribunal that he or she was not appointed or proposed for appointment by reason of an abuse of authority.

Gulia v. Chief Administrator of the Courts Administration Service - 2024 FPSLREB 23 - 2024-02-16

[1] On December 31, 2019, Yoginder Gulia, (“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)).   [...]  [38] Section 77(1) of the PSEA provides that a person may make a complaint that he or she was not appointed because the PSC or a deputy head abused their authority in making an appointment.

Brown v. Commissioner of Correctional Service of Canada - 2012 PSST 0017 - 2012-07-05

7 The complainant filed three complaints 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).   [...]  23 As such, the Tribunal's role under s. 77 of the PSEA is to determine whether or not the respondent abused its authority with respect to a complainant in an appointment process.   [...]  26 Under s. 77 of the PSEA, a person who is not appointed in an internal appointment process is entitled to make a complaint that he or she was not appointed or proposed for appointment by reason of abuse of authority on the part of the PSC or deputy head.

Trocchia v. Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs et al. - 2007 PSST 0014 - 2007-04-20

outside Canada and is excluded from the operation of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. C-22, ss. 12, 13 (the PSEA). Background 2 On January 9, 2007, the complainant, Donato Trocchia, filed a complaint with the Public Service Staffing Tribunal (the Tribunal) under section 77 of the PSEA, c. C-22, ss. 12, 13.   [...]  13 Subsection 20(1) of the current PSEA, which came into force on December 30, 2005, also has a provision to allow the exclusion of positions or persons from the application of the PSEA. Its wording is similar to the wording of section 39 referenced in paragraph 11 above.   [...]  17 Since “the positions of persons engaged locally outside Canada” are still excluded from the application of the PSEA, the right to complain to the Tribunal found in section 77 of the PSEA when dealing with internal appointments under the PSEA is not available to those persons.