Federal Court


Panels relied on outdated job descriptions to make decisions

Plaintiff was employee of defendant governmental agency since 1996. Selection panels appointed for staffing of positions rejected plaintiff’s application for three different positions on basis of lack of experience. They claimed that she did not have experience in international audits of at least eighteen months in past five years. Plaintiff asked for reconsideration but panels maintained initial decisions. Plaintiff sought judicial review. She claimed that decisions were unreasonable and arbitrary. She claimed that panels erred in their assessment of her experience. Application allowed. Determination of whether candidate had sufficient experience was question of fact. Reasonableness standard applied. Plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence of her relevant experience for positions sought. Panels had relied on outdated job descriptions to make their decisions and did not contact plaintiff’s former supervisors to ascertain her experience. Panels made fundamental and dominant error which justified judicial review. Appointment of new panels required to review plaintiff’s candidacy.

Tran v. Agence du Revenu du Canada

(Aug. 19, 2011, F.C., Lemieux J., File No. T-493-10; T-494-10; T-503-10) Reasons in French. 206 A.C.W.S. (3d) 79 (28 pp.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

A report is making waves because it reveals statistics about composition of juries in two Eastern Ontario regions, which lawyers say show how the system can be biased. Do you believe Ontario juries are representative of all the people who come before the court?