Federal court | Administrative Law
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Lack of individual feedback tainted decision
This was application for judicial review of decision of selection board. Applicant applied for three positions. Decision concluded that applicant’s application did not meet pre-requisite criteria for three selection processes. Decision arose after judge ordered reconsideration by differently constituted board. Decision established that members of selection board met with applicant’s supervisor to clarify her tasks without applicant being present; that review of information allowed them to determine that applicant did not meet expectations at pre-requisite stage; and that selection board informed applicant that staffing program did not provide recourse following application of corrective measure. Application granted. Selection board confused corrective measures that might be taken in context of assessment of pre-requisites with corrective measure that had been judge’s decision to refer matter back for consideration by differently constituted board. Case was under de novo review and applicant was entitled to individual feedback. Applicant did not receive reasons for rejection of application, which would have allowed for corrective measures to be taken as program provided. Approach constituted breach of audi alteram partem rule. Lack of individual feedback deprived applicant of advice on professional development needs and it tainted decision. Situation called for completely new assessment.
Tran c. Canada (Procureur général) (May. 1, 2013, F.C., Yvan Roy J., File No. T-728-12) 231 A.C.W.S. (3d) 4.
Lack of individual feedback tainted decision
This was application for judicial review of decision of selection board. Applicant applied for three positions. Decision concluded that applicant’s application did not meet pre-requisite criteria for three selection processes. Decision arose after judge ordered reconsideration by differently constituted board. Decision established that members of selection board met with applicant’s supervisor to clarify her tasks without applicant being present; that review of information allowed them to determine that applicant did not meet expectations at pre-requisite stage; and that selection board informed applicant that staffing program did not provide recourse following application of corrective measure. Application granted. Selection board confused corrective measures that might be taken in context of assessment of pre-requisites with corrective measure that had been judge’s decision to refer matter back for consideration by differently constituted board. Case was under de novo review and applicant was entitled to individual feedback. Applicant did not receive reasons for rejection of application, which would have allowed for corrective measures to be taken as program provided. Approach constituted breach of audi alteram partem rule. Lack of individual feedback deprived applicant of advice on professional development needs and it tainted decision. Situation called for completely new assessment.
Tran c. Canada (Procureur général) (May. 1, 2013, F.C., Yvan Roy J., File No. T-728-12) 231 A.C.W.S. (3d) 4.
