Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

Gayef v. Canada ( Treasury Board )

T-267-93

McGillis J.

5/10/93

5 pp.

Application for judicial review of Appeal Board's dismissal of Public Service Employment Act, s. 21 appeal-Competition for AU-3 posititon limited to Department of National Revenue employees in Calgary holding positions classified at AU-2 level or higher-Applicant applying although AU-1-Summarily rejected for not meeting occupational level restriction-In dismissing appeal, Appeal Board concluding Department, exercising authority delegated to it by PSC, having right to establish area of competition and merit principle not applicable; Board lacking authority to enforce staffing policies, guidelines of Department or PSC; Department's failure to abide by terms and conditions of delegation by PSC not basis for allowing appeal under s. 21, but matter between PSC and Department under s. 6-No evidence tendered concerning instrument of delegation, terms or conditions-Whether alleged breaches by Department of departmental or PSC policies on limiting area of competition basis for appeal-Whether Appeal Board having authority in s. 21 appeal to enforce departmental or PSC policies on limiting area of competition-Application dismissed-As argument Department required by terms and conditions of delegated authority to act in accordance with departmental and Commission policies advanced in absence of proper evidentiary framework, Appeal Board correctly rejecting it-Also correctly holding lacking authority to enforce departmental and Commission policies based on Bambrough v. Public Service Commission, [1976] 2 F.C. 109 (C.A.)-Mere breach of departmental or PSC policies not valid basis for challenging, under s. 21, legality of restriction imposed on area of competition-Department having ample justification for restricting area of competition by limiting eligibility based on occupational level and restriction related directly to nature of postion to be filled-Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-33, ss. 6, 21.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.