Advanced Search

Carnegie v. Deputy Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada et al. - 2009 PSST 0006 - 2009-03-02

7On August 7, 2007, the complainant 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).   [...]  42The 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   [...]  78The respondent submits that the complainant has failed to meet the burden of proof that the respondent abused its authority under section 77 of the PSEA. C) Public Service Commission’s arguments 79 The Public Service Commission (PSC) made its submissions in writing.

Scott and Moore v. Deputy Minister of Health Canada et al. - 2007 PSST 0012 - 2007-03-30

1 On October 25, 2006, Ms. Lori-Ann Scott (PSST file 2006-0189) and Ms. Tania Moore (PSST file 2006-0190) both filed a complaint under paragraph 77(1)b) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. C-22, sections 12 and 13 (PSEA).   [...]  26 The Tribunal’s jurisdiction when dealing with a complaint for an internal non-advertised appointment is found in paragraphs 77(1)b) and 77(2)b) 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)   [...]   of selection “by establishing geographic, organizational or occupational criteria.” The respondent identified a specific Directorate in Vancouver, i.e. the Health Transfer and Benefits Directorate, as the area of selection which is the basis of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in accordance with subsection 77(2)b) of the PSEA.

Keagan v. Treasury Board (Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs) - 2023 FPSLREB 45 - 2023-05-02

Employer submissions on the relevance of section 36 of PSEA 20 Bargaining agent’s submissions on the relevance of section 36 of PSEA   [...]  [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)”.   [...]  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

Davidson v. Deputy Minister of Justice - 2022 FPSLREB 21 - 2022-03-29

[16] On December 24, 2017, the complainant made a complaint of abuse of authority about this appointment with the Board pursuant to s. 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; “the PSEA”).   [...]  [19] Section 77(1)(a) of the PSEA provides that an unsuccessful candidate in the area of selection for an advertised internal appointment process may make a complaint to the Board that he or she was not appointed or proposed for appointment because of an abuse of authority in the application of merit.   [...]  Section 77(1)(b) of the PSEA states that a person in the area of recourse may make a complaint to the Board that he or she was not appointed by reason of an abuse of authority that occurred in the choice between an advertised and a non-advertised process.

Song v. Deputy Minister National Defence - 2016 PSLREB 73 - 2016-08-10

8 The complainant filed a complaint of abuse of authority with the Public Service Staffing Tribunal (Tribunal) under s. 77 of the Public Service Employment ActS.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12 and 13 (PSEA).   [...]  11 Section 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.   [...]  19 Section 80 of the PSEA provides that in determining whether a complaint is substantiated under s. 77, the Board may interpret and apply the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA).

Donovan v. Deputy Head (Department of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FPSLREB 31 - 2024-03-07

[1] On November 21, 2018, Jean Donovan (“the complainant”) made a complaint to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (“the Board”) under s. 77(1)(b) of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; PSEA).   [...]  [50] It is well established that in a complaint made under s. 77 of the PSEA, the complainant bears the burden of proving that the respondent abused its authority in the making of an appointment; see Tibbs v. Deputy Minister of National Defence, 2006 PSST 8 at paras. 48 to 55.   [...]  [70] The complainant cited the Board’s decision in Ghafari v. Deputy Head (Statistics Canada), 2022 FPSLREB 77 at para. 66, and argued that the definition of abuse of authority in the PSEA can include other forms of inappropriate behaviour, such as the emails suggesting that she was known to local management.

Soni v. Deputy Head (Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development) - 2022 FPSLREB 33 - 2022-04-26

was contrary to GAC’s normal practice of promoting individuals by way of a collective advertised process, constituted an abuse of authority on the part of the respondent, the deputy head of GAC. They filed a complaint pursuant to s. 77(1)(b) of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12 and 13; “PSEA”).   [...]  [36] The complaints were made under s. 77(1)(b) 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 Board’s regulations   [...]  Nevertheless, the PSEA does not make any distinction between appointments to a rotational or a non-rotational position when it comes to the choice of process.

Hughes v. Deputy Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada - 2011 PSST 0016 - 2011-06-14

8 The complainant filed two complaints under s. 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12,13 (the PSEA) on October 8, 2008, with respect to these appointments or proposed appointments.   [...]  25 As the PSC notes, under s. 79(1) of the PSEA, it has the right to be heard in relation to a complaint filed under s. 77.   [...]  This framework includes accountability for delegated managers and a commitment to the values set out in the Preamble to the PSEA. Section 77(1) 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 by reason of abuse of

Tanguay v. Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada - 2018 FPSLREB 94 - 2018-12-27

The abuse-of-authority complaint was made to the Board under s. 77 of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; PSEA).   [...]  19 The complainant relies on s. 77(1)(b) of the PSEA to claim that the respondent abused its authority by choosing a non-advertised appointment process.   [...]  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.

Renaud v. Deputy Minister of National Defence - 2013 PSST 26 - 2013-08-19

10 On April 3, 2012, the complainant filed his complaint of abuse of authority with the Public Service Staffing Tribunal (the Tribunal) under s. 77 of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12,13 (PSEA).   [...]  12 Section 77(1) 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.   [...]  Doing so amounted to a breach of the PSEA appointment values of fairness and transparency. 34 As expressed in the preamble to the PSEA, the exercise of discretion in staffing within the public service must be characterized by fair and transparent employment practices (see Tibbs at para. 64).

Pynn v. Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada - 2014 PSST 15 - 2014-09-03

9 On March 25, 2013, the complainant filed complaints with the Tribunal under s. 77 of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13 (the PSEA) concerning these two appointments.   [...]  12 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.   [...]  The PSEA does not authorize the Tribunal to assess candidates for appointment.

Feeney v. Deputy Minister of National Defence et al. - 2008 PSST 0017 - 2008-07-08

15 The complainant filed a complaint to the Tribunal on June 14, 2007 under paragraph 77(1)(a) of the PSEA. Issues 16 To resolve this complaint, the Tribunal must determine the following issues:   [...]  37 Paragraph 30(2)(a) of the PSEA deals with the deputy head’s authority to establish essential qualifications:   [...]  46 The Tribunal addressed section 36 of the PSEA in Visca, at paragraph 51, where it found: “Managers have broad discretion under section 36 of the PSEA to select and use assessment methods to determine whether a candidate meets the established qualifications for a position.”

Breen v. Deputy Minister of Citizenship and Immigration - 2014 PSST 17 - 2014-10-21

The complainant filed two complaints of abuse of authority with the Tribunal under s. 77 of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13 (PSEA) on February 26, 2013.   [...]  15 Section 77 of the PSEA provides for recourse when an appointment or proposed appointment has been made in an internal appointment process.   [...]  20 Section 80 of the PSEA provides that in considering whether a complaint is substantiated under s. 77, the Tribunal may interpret and apply the CHRA.