Advanced Search

Parker v. Deputy Head of the Public Service Commission - 2024 FPSLREB 171 - 2024-12-11

[1] The complainant, Nadine Parker, 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”).   [...]  [68] Sections 77(1)(a) and (b) of the PSEA provide 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 — make a complaint to   [...]  [77] The complainant argued that the director fettered her discretion by relying on the examination.

Montpetit v. the President of the Canada Border Services Agency - 2013 PSST 0017 - 2013-05-29

9 On October 6, 2008, the complainant filed a complaint of abuse of authority with the Tribunal pursuant to s. 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13 (the PSEA).   [...]  24 Section 77(1) of the PSEA states that a person in the area of recourse may make a complaint that he or she was not appointed or proposed for appointment by reason of an abuse of authority by the PSC or the deputy head in the appointment process.   [...]  Section 36 of the PSEA gives delegated managers broad discretion in choosing assessment methods.

De Santis v. Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada - 2016 PSLREB 34 - 2016-04-21

14 On May 13, 2014, the complainant filed a complaint of abuse of authority with the Board pursuant to s. 77(1)(a) and (b) of the PSEA relating to the acting appointment. III. Preliminary matter   [...]  19 The relevant provisions of the PSEA for the purpose of this complaint are the following: 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   [...]  25 The PSEA does not define “advertised”, “non-advertised”, or “Expression of Interest”.

Muka v. The President of the Canada Border Services Agency - 2021 FPSLREB 53 - 2021-05-19

... 32 Neither the PSEA nor PSC’s Appointment Policy guarantees an employee a right of access to every appointment opportunity.   [...]  ... [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, a person in the area of recourse can complain to the Tribunal under paragraph 77(1)(a) of the PSEA that he or she was not appointed or proposed for appointment because there was abuse of authority when the selection board exercised its discretion under subsection 30(2) and made a selection from those candidates

Samson v. Deputy Head (Correctional Service of Canada) - 2024 FPSLREB 177 - 2024-12-13

In support of its argument, the PSC refers me to section 1 of the Regulations and sections 77 and 81 of the PSEA. Indeed, according to section 81 of the PSEA, a corrective action order can only be made against the holder of the authority to appoint for the process in question.   [...]  This complaint is based on paragraph 77(1)(a) of the PSEA. Subsection 2(4) of the same Act defines what constitutes abuse of authority.   [...]   of bias constitutes an abuse of authority within the meaning of subsection 2(4) of the PSEA (see Denny, at para. 122; Bédard v. Deputy Minister of National Defence, 2010 PSST 15, at para. 51 (“Bédard 2010”); Amirault, at para. 77; Palmquist v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency, 2020 FPSLREB 6, at para. 77)

Fang v. Deputy Head (Department of Industry) and Treasury Board (Department of Industry) - 2023 FPSLREB 52 - 2023-05-23

[1] The complainant, Dr. Yudong Fang, made a complaint with the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (“the Board”) under s. 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; “PSEA”).   [...]  In considering whether a complaint under s. 77 of the PSEA is substantiated, the Board may interpret and apply the CHRA and may order relief in accordance with ss. 53(2)(e) and 53(3) of the CHRA.   [...]  [105] Any person in the area of selection for a non-advertised internal appointment process can make a complaint with the Board that he or she was not appointed or proposed for appointment because of an abuse of authority (see s. 77 of the PSEA). The PSEA does not define “abuse of authority”, although it does state that it

Spirak v. Deputy Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada - 2012 PSST 0020 - 2012-08-07

1 The complainant, Daniel Spirak, has filed a complaint 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 (the PSEA).   [...]  Section 77(1)(a) of the PSEA states that a complaint can be filed alleging that a deputy head abused its authority in the exercise of its delegated authority to make an appointment on the basis of merit under s. 30(2) of the PSEA. Abuse of authority is not defined in the PSEA. However, s. 2(4) of the PSEA offers the   [...]  Section 77(1)(b) of the PSEA provides for a direct challenge of the discretionary choice between an advertised process and a non-advertised process, on the ground of abuse of authority.

Richard v. Deputy Minister of National Defence - 2013 PSST 24 - 2013-06-25

77(1)(a) and (b) of the Public Service Employment Act Decision: The complaint is dismissed   [...]  11 On May 16, 2011, the complainant filed a complaint of abuse of authority with the Tribunal pursuant to s. 77(1)(a) and (b) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13 (PSEA).   [...]  13 Section 77(1) of the PSEA states that a person in the area of recourse may make a complaint that he or she was not appointed or proposed for appointment by reason of an abuse of authority by the PSC or the deputy head in the appointment process.

Turner v. Deputy Head (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) - 2024 FPSLREB 33 - 2024-03-12

In the circumstances of this case, the complainant argues that revoking the appointments under s. 81(1) of the PSEA is the only appropriate remedy. [26] According to her, blatantly contravening the PSEA constitutes bad faith, which is one of the most serious forms of abuse of authority.   [...]  The appointments were not based on merit, as defined in the PSEA. [51] It must be assumed that the Board chose its words in Turner FPSLREB with care.   [...]  The objectives of the PSEA are, in my opinion, adequately met by making a declaration and revoking the appointments.

Brookfield v. Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade - 2011 PSST 0025 - 2011-09-09

PSEA Requirements 22 Section 30(2) of the PSEA sets out the authority of the deputy head to establish qualifications.   [...]  31 According to s. 31 of the PSEA, it is the employer, not the respondent that establishes qualification standards.   [...]  Moreover, s. 30(2) of the PSEA sets out the requirement that candidates must meet the essential qualifications to be considered for appointment.

Ghafari v. Deputy Head (Statistics Canada) - 2022 FPSLREB 77 - 2022-09-12

Citation: 2022 FPSLREB 77 Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and   [...]  [1] The complainant, Mario Ghafari, made a complaint under s. 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; “PSEA”), alleging abuse of authority by the respondent, the Chief Statistician of Canada, in an internal advertised appointment process for senior methodologist positions at Statistics   [...]  [63] Section 77(1)(a) of the PSEA provides that an unsuccessful candidate in the area of selection for an internal appointment process may make a complaint to the Board that he or she was not appointed to or proposed for appointment because of an abuse of authority in the application of merit.

Jogarajah v. Chief Public Health Officer of the Public Health Agency of Canada et al. - 2007 PSST 0013 - 2007-04-10

1 On January 23, 2007, Mr. Godwin Jogarajah, filed two complaints (files 2007-0040 and 2007-0054) with 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).   [...]  The Tribunal referred to its decision in Czarnecki v. Deputy Head of Service Canada et al., [2007] PSST 0001, where it found that an employee’s right to file a complaint under section 77 of the PSEA is conditional on an appointment or proposed appointment being made.   [...]  18 The fact that the complainant did not check off the second portion of the box under section 77 on the complaint form does not mislead the Tribunal or the respondent as to the nature of the complaint.

Lishman v. Deputy Minister of Environment Canada - 2013 PSST 0012 - 2013-04-05

In complaints filed under s. 65(1) of the PSEA, s. 65(3) of the PSEA provides that “every other employee in the part of the organization” has the right to be heard.   [...]  The Tribunal therefore finds that the complainant has the right to bring this complaint under s. 65(1) of the PSEA. 44 The Tribunal's mandate is found in s. 88(2) of the PSEA: “The mandate of the Tribunal is to consider and dispose of complaints made under subsection 65(1) and sections 74, 77 and 83”.   [...]  62 Section 65(7) of the PSEA authorizes the Tribunal to interpret and apply the CHRA in determining whether a complaint filed under s. 65(1) of the PSEA is substantiated.