Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

Ordines v. Canada ( Attorney General )

T-72-98

Denault J.

8/10/98

9 pp.

Application for judicial review of Appeal Board decision dismissing applicants' appeal of appointment without competition of Richard de Tilly to security equipment maintenance officer position at Regional Reception Centre in Ste-Anne-des-Plaines, Quebec-Employee in question appointed acting maintenance officer in December 1995-Employee then appointed to position on indeterminate basis, without competition-Applicants appealing indeterminate appointment under Public Service Employment Act, s. 21(1.1)-Appeal Board dismissing applicants' appeal on ground Selection Board observed merit principle during selection process for position of maintenance officer-Merit principle requires best qualified persons among those available be appointed to positions in public service-Merit principle compromised if assignment combined with selection process that gave unfair advantage to candidate assigned to position: Canada (Attorney General) v. Pearce, [1989] 3 F.C. 272; McAuliffe v. Canada (Attorney General) (1997), 128 F.T.R. 39 (F.C.T.D.)-Applicants argued Mr. de Tilly had unfair advantage by acquiring work experience specific to position of maintenance officer due to preferential treatment by employer-Merit principle requiring appointment of candidate best qualified to fill position, not necessarily candidate best informed about position in question-Applicants could never have obtained "superior" rating for requirement of knowledge of inventory of security equipment according to scale of issue approved by National Headquarters, because applicants never held position of maintenance officer-Selection process itself gave advantage to candidate most familiar with job in question-Actions of Selection Board compromised principle of selection according to merit and Appeal Board erred in failing to ascertain whether assignment in combination with selection process gave unfair advantage to candidate assigned to position, thus compromising principle in question-Application allowed-Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-33, s. 21(1.1) (as enacted by S.C. 1992, c. 54, s. 16).

 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.