Chappell v. Canada ( Attorney General )
T-844-96
Nadon J.
13/5/97
12 pp.
Application to set aside Appeal Board's dismissal of appeal against three acting appointments-Ten months prior to appointments, Supervisory In-Basket Exercise administered as part of competition for Superintendent position at Customs and Excise-That competition never completed-During competition herein for Customs Superintendents with Revenue Canada, results of previously administered test used to screen out candidates not receiving passing mark (applicants herein)-Selection Board determining nothing indicating applicants receiving training, practical experience which could impact on respective scores since writing test-Application dismissed-(1) Finding test measured generic, not job specific abilities not made in perverse, capricious manner or without regard to evidence-Although significant difference between supervising employees in office setting and supervising peace officers at airport, general supervisory abilities required of Customs Superintendent-Abilities tested bare minimum and starting point for assessing general supervisory ability for all types of supervisors-Appeal Board decision use of test in accordance with merit principle not error of law, fact-(2) Federal Court of Appeal stating merit principle requiring selection of candidate who at time of competition best able to perform all duties specified in competition notice in Laberge v. Canada (Attorney General), [1988] 2 F.C. 137 (C.A.)-Not requiring assessment of all candidates with respect to all abilities-Selection Board can establish which abilities most crucial, screen out candidates not possessing at least most basic of skills-Requiring Selection Board to assess all of abilities of all candidates, even once determined not possessing necessary basic skills, imposing overly onerous burden on Selection Board, not enhancing merit principle-(3) Departmental policy stipulating persons should not be allowed to rewrite within 180 days in order to lessen skewed results obtained because candidates able to remember questions from previous sitting-Nothing in policy stipulating persons having right to retake exam once 180 days expired-Record revealing test measuring abilities not knowledge-Only training, actual experience altering ability to perform at significantly higher level on test-No obligation on Selection Board to create fool-proof system for selection of absolutely most meritorious candidate every time-Only requirement imposed by Public Service Employment Act, s. 10 requiring selection be based on merit-Test measuring relative merit of candidates for positions at issue-Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-33, s. 10 (as am. by S.C. 1992, c. 54, s. 10).