Digests

Hiseler v. Canada (Attorney General)

T-1621-00

2004 FC 614, Gibson J.

26/4/04

16 pp.

Judicial review of second Appeal Board's decision dismissing appeal of applicant (Mr. Hiseler) and dismissing in part appeal of applicant (Mr. Warren) (collectively applicants), from reassessment by Corrective Measures Board of participants in competition--Applicants employed as Foreign Service Officers with Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, occupied positions classified at FS-01 level prior to December 1 , 1998--As result of competition, Hiseler promoted, Warrent not promoted--Warren and other appealed--Appropriate standard of review on application correctness--Whether decision under review resulted in selections for appointment according to merit--Applicant Warren essentially successful at hearing resulting in decision under review in that appeal was allowed, albeit not on all grounds, even on most of grounds, presented on his behalf--In GKO Engineering v. Canada (2001), 268 N.R. 383 (F.C.A.), Court said unless seeking different disposition, respondent has no basis to bring its own judicial review application--Applicant seeking judicial review of Appeal Board's reasons, not disposition--On authority of GKO Engineering, judicial review of decision under review not open to Warren--On this ground alone, application dismissed --Applicants submitted Corrective Measures Board bound to implement findings of first Appeal Board--That position could not succeed--Public Service Employment Act, s. 21(3) empowering Commission to remedy defect determined by Appeal Board, but not requiring it do so: Maassen v. Canada (Attorney General), [2001] F.C.J. No. 961 (T.D.) (QL)-- Appeal Board correct in concluding appointments based on measures taken by Corrective Measures Board not resulting in selection(s) for appointment otherwise than in accordance with merit principle--Applications dismissed--Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-33, s. 21 (as am. by S.C. 1992, c. 54, s. 16; 1996, c. 18, s. 15).