ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Judicial Review
Grounds of Review
Judicial review of decision of Classification Grievance Committee of Canadian Food Inspection Agency (Agency) unable to reach final conclusion due to “conflicting information”; stating de novo Committee would be established —Applicants, employees of Canadian Food Inspection Agency filed individual grievances that positions within Agency improperly classified, sought reclassification— Respondent “separate employer” under Part II of Public Service Staff Relations Act—Therefore, treatment of classification grievances resting with Agency itself—Agency’s administrative procedure to deal with classification grievances entitled Classification Grievance Process—Once grievance as to classification made, Process providing that Classification Grievance Committee to receive information, deliberate, report to Manager, Corporate Classification and Organization Design—Also providing Committee to do work in camera until report completed, signed—Then, Manager to review report, make recommendation to Vice-President (VP), Human Resources who makes final determination as to grievance, i.e. accepts report, renders separate decision or takes other steps set out in Process—Classification Grievance Process administrative redress, not intended to be adversarial—In present case, Committee prepared report recommending applicants be reclassified but report not signed by Committee —Instead, Manager reviewed draft report, refused to pass along to VP in that form—Believed report based on erroneous, incomplete information—Because of Manager’s refusal to support Board’s proposed report, Board’s Chairman wrote to applicants stating decision under review—Applicants claiming respondent erred in law, acted in bad faith, violated rights to natural justice, procedural fairness—Agency’s Classi-fication Grievance Process not statutory, but constituting guidelines—Once established, Agency expected to abide by process—Process regarding classification not followed— Process not providing for Manager to see draft report or require committee to retire, have new committee formed— Provisions of Process not so broad as to enable Manager to act outside boundaries thereof—Deviations from Process expressly provided for in Foreword, require approval from Corporate Classification Resources Branch—No evidence such approval sought, obtained—Manager’s improper review of draft report, refusal to deal with matter other than having new committee struck not provided for, contravened Process —Applicants had legitimate expectation Process would be followed—Constituting breach of natural justice whereby Court can intervene—Once breach of duty found, decision below must be set aside—Standard of review to be applied standard of correctness—Federal Courts Act, s. 18.1(3) providing for nature of relief Court may provide—Relief expressly provided for by use of word “may” implying all relief normally associated with certiorari, mandamus, or proceedings “in the nature” thereof may be given— Therefore, if at common law, there is some constraint on relief by way of certiorari or mandamus, constraint is lifted to extent s. 18.1(3) providing therefor—Application allowed—Public Service Staff Relations Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P‑35, s. 91 (repealed by S.C. 2002, c. 23, s. 285)—Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F‑7, ss. 1 (as am. by S.C. 2002, c. 8, s. 14), 18.1 (as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 5; S.C. 2002, c. 8, s. 27).
Gilchrist v. Canada (Treasury Board) (T‑2173‑04, 2005 FC 1322, Hughes J., order dated 27/9/05, 12 pp.)