Bulat v. Canada ( Treasury Board )
T-1191-97
Lutfy J.
8/7/98
8 pp.
Application for judicial review as to whether Classification Grievance Committee failed to meet required duty of procedural fairness-Court adopting analysis of McKeown J. in Chong et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1995), 104 F.T.R. 253 (F.C.T.D.) concerning standard of fairness in grievance procedure-Grievance procedure dispute resolution mechanism between employee, management concerning job classification-Classification grievance process not intended to be adversarial system-Not subject to adjudication under Public Service Staff Relations Act-Standard of fairness defined by McKeown J. consistent with griever's interests-Judicial review limited to Committee's failure to disclose, prior to making decision, management's position applicant's activities concerning contacts developmental, performed on voluntary basis-Onus on applicants to prove classification wrong-Important factual distinction between expert report not disclosed to griever in Hale v. Canada (Treasury Board) (1996), 112 F.T.R. 216 (F.C.T.D.) and management's characterization of nature of applicant's external contact duties herein-Applicant had sufficient knowledge of issues-No further disclosure necessary to assure "meaningful participation" in Classification Grievance Procedure-Applicant failing to establish contact activities duties assigned to, performed by him-No violation of principle of fairness in circumstances of case-Committee's recommendations reached fairly in manner consistent with grievance procedure-Application dismissed-Public Service Staff Relations Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-35.