Chong v. Canada ( Treasury Board )
T-905-96
Joyal J.
16/6/97
8 pp.
Application for judicial review of Classification Grievance Committee's recommendation applicants' positions (Intelligence Analysts with Employment and Immigration in BC/Yukon Region) be classified at PM-03 group and level-Applicants had argued Ontario colleagues having same job description and exercising same functions enjoying PM-04 status-Application for judicial review allowed November 30, 1995 and matter returned to Committee to review differences between Ontario positions and BC/Yukon positions, and to review evidence of Mr. John Kent (who provided only information from management side, which information was not communicated to applicants) in accordance with Classification Grievance Procedure in preparing reasons-As result, Committee ordered audit of Ontario Region positions and recommended reclassification thereof to PM-03, and results communicated to applicants-Subsequently, Committee met again to review John Kent's evidence and added Addendum Report-Committee concluded original recommendation should stand and advised grievors-Further application to review second recommendation-Application dismissed-Grievance process calling upon grievors to state case in absence of management and upon management to state case in absence of grievors-Provisions in classification grievance process must be read and interpreted within context of exclusive management rights conferred on respondents by Financial Administration Act to classify positions and employees in Public Service, and further, on specific exclusion from appeal procedures otherwise available under PSSRA-Scheme not adversarial, nor does it necessarily open door to technical challenges based on procedural fairness, breach of natural justice-Requirements of fairness herein sufficiently minimal that simple allegation party did not hear evidence, nor given opportunity to respond to or cross-examine on it, not sufficient-Not case where unfairness per se will give rise to certiorari, but where specific lines of prejudice must be pleaded -Furthermore, no evidence allegations of unfairness more than mere allegations bereft of any substance-More restrained approach of McKeown J. in Chong et al. v. Canada (1995), 104 F.T.R. 253 (F.C.T.D.) and of Pinard J. in Tanack et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board) (1996), 112 F.T.R. 182 (F.C.T.D.) preferred to that of Reed J. in Hale v. Canada (Treasury Board) (1996), 112 F.T.R. 216 (F.C.T.D.)-Matter of classification not negotiable issue, and as far as Court concerned, processes in that regard should be left to Treasury Board, statutorily and exclusively endowed by Parliament to deal with it-Must be some demonstrable error or prejudice in purely administrative process before court should intervene by way of judicial review-Wisdom lying less on precedent and more on case-by-case approach-Financial Administration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-11-Public Service Staff Relations Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-35.