Deering v. Canada ( Attorney General )
T-2146-96
Hugessen J.
17/9/97
6 pp.
Judicial review of investigator's decision Department not acting unreasonably in not directly comparing employees' knowledge-Applicants input/output clerks-Performance of duties requiring substantial degree of knowledge-Complaining with respect to reverse order of merit selection process for lay-offs pursuant to Public Service Employment Regulations, s. 34-Reverse order of merit selection process not directly testing knowledge of persons concerned-"Statement of qualifications" including five abilities, three personal suitability traits-Department submitting unnecessary to test knowledge since all employees performing at satisfactory level-Applications dismissed-Although Department responsible for establishing qualifications for position, not denying knowledge essential qualification for these positions-So-called statement of qualifications not such, but merely list of five abilities, three personal suitability traits required for position-Department cannot disregard whole area of requirements for performing duties of position when establishing reverse order of merit by testing qualifications of persons occupying position-While knowledge requirement for positions, not always necessary to test it directly-Examples of inferring capacity to perform one duty from actual performance of other duties in Laberge v. Canada (Attorney General), [1988] 2 F.C. 137 (C.A.) instructive-No requirement selection process should always contain separate test under rubric "knowledge"-Sufficient if required knowledge assessed in one way or another-Statement of qualifications herein practical test, allowing selection committee to test employees' ability to apply their knowledge-Reasonable conclusion of fact, open to investigator to make-Public Service Employment Regulations, 1993, SOR/93-286, s. 34.