Federal court | Employment
PUBLIC SERVICE
Analysis generic and akin to rubber stamp
Application for judicial review of three decisions made by Decision Reviewer of CRA. Applicants made allegations of arbitrary treatment after they were unsuccessful in promotional process at CRA. Decision reviewer did not find any evidence of arbitrary treatment in selection process. Application allowed. Reasons inadequate. Analysis conducted by Decision Reviewer confined to sentence in which she expressed that applicants provided insufficient analysis in their Portfolios of Technical Competencies. Analysis generic and akin to rubber stamp. Nothing to suggest that allegations of applicants seriously considered. Notes of Decision Reviewer raised further concerns instead of clarifying reasons or expressing basis for decisions. Notes revealed Decision Reviewer found some of the worksheet comments of the Technical Competency Assessors to be questionable. Several e-mails in which Decision Reviewer expressed that requests for decision review might represent arbitrary decisions. Nothing to indicate how Decision Reviewer resolved issues presented by applicants or uncovered by her own review to come to conclusion TCA’s were reasonable in awarding scores.
D’Urzo v. Canada Revenue Agency (July 28, 2011, F.C., Near J., File No. T-591-10) 205 A.C.W.S. (3d) 979 (19 pp.).
Analysis generic and akin to rubber stamp
Application for judicial review of three decisions made by Decision Reviewer of CRA. Applicants made allegations of arbitrary treatment after they were unsuccessful in promotional process at CRA. Decision reviewer did not find any evidence of arbitrary treatment in selection process. Application allowed. Reasons inadequate. Analysis conducted by Decision Reviewer confined to sentence in which she expressed that applicants provided insufficient analysis in their Portfolios of Technical Competencies. Analysis generic and akin to rubber stamp. Nothing to suggest that allegations of applicants seriously considered. Notes of Decision Reviewer raised further concerns instead of clarifying reasons or expressing basis for decisions. Notes revealed Decision Reviewer found some of the worksheet comments of the Technical Competency Assessors to be questionable. Several e-mails in which Decision Reviewer expressed that requests for decision review might represent arbitrary decisions. Nothing to indicate how Decision Reviewer resolved issues presented by applicants or uncovered by her own review to come to conclusion TCA’s were reasonable in awarding scores.
D’Urzo v. Canada Revenue Agency (July 28, 2011, F.C., Near J., File No. T-591-10) 205 A.C.W.S. (3d) 979 (19 pp.).
