PUBLIC SERVICE |
Selection Process |
Competitions |
Nault v. Canada (Public Service Commission)
T-899-01
2002 FCT 1297, Blais J.
13/12/02
17 p.
Judicial review in opposition to Public Service Commission of Canada (PSC) investigator's investigation report according to which applicant had failed to demonstrate merit of allegation had been unfairly refused interview for certain positions within Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC)--In December 1999, PWGSC initiated staffing process to fill approximately 40 financial analyst positions--On March 29, 2000, applicant sent in four applications, including curriculum vitae and brief cover letter--All of applications sent to PWGSC on April 10, 2000--Given scope of competitions, PWGSC consulted PSC in order to reduce number of potential candidates for interviews--PSC recommended use of two tests--To be eligible to write tests, each candidate had to satisfy three conditions (timeliness of application; area of competition; education)--Between May 27 and beginning of August, 2000, PWGSC corrected general competency test--At this point, 51 applications, including applicant's, rejected, notwithstanding result obtained on test--On August 23, 2000, applicant telephoned person responsible for coordination of stages in competitions--During conversation, applicant informed his application rejected as it failed to meet necessary experience criteria--On November 17, 2000, applicant filed request for investigation with PSC Recourse Branch (the Branch) in order to have review of handling of his application in competitions--Whether investigator erred in finding applicant had not provided sufficient information upon his enrolment in competition to show had acquired all of necessary experience for positions--Role of investigator to assess whether Department's decision to reject applicant's application was justified--Test not sole criterion of preselection in order to be summoned to interview--Clearly, no error in law committed by investigator in conclusions in relation to merit principle-- Applicant's second submission that investigator produced report based on mistakes of fact and reached arbitrary conclusions without regard for relevant material before him--If applicant had wished to create specific link between fact that had worked as inspecting auditor and requirement of experience in area of financial administration, had responsibility of mentioning it--Furthermore, fact that investigator concluded applicant satisfied one of four requisite experience criteria clearly indicating special attention investigator gave to relevant factors in file before him--Applicant not classified "by merit" for appointment to one of financial system analyst positions--Investigator, in his evaluation, took into account all of relevant factors he had before him and did not commit any error that might warrant intervention of Court-- Application dismissed.