McKeon v. Canada ( Attorney General )
T-1028-95
Simpson J.
11/6/96
14 pp.
Application for judicial review of Chairman of Public Service Commission's decision refusing to disqualify himself in appeal cases-Appeals from appointments under Public Service Employment Act-Appellants represented by two union representatives, Stein and Jurjans-Summer of 1994, Jurjans complaining Department refusing to provide copies of all written essays submitted by candidates to competition-February 1995, teleconferences held with Chairman, employer's representative, Stein, Jurjans-Representatives directed to provide proper allegations by March 4, 1995-Jurjans faxing allegations to Chairman-Chairman twice contacting Jurjans to advise allegations inadequate and requesting greater clarification-Jurjans asking Chairman to order employer's representative to provide full response to allegations prior to hearing-At hearing, Chairman making personal comments especially toward Jurjans concerning suitability as representative, statement allegations "vague and nebulous", statement she had "unmitigated gall" in requesting employer's representative be required to provide written response one week prior to hearing, statement she had prejudiced her client and drawing distinction between her and Stein-With respect to Stein, Chairman commenting Stein "totally irresponsible", "totally unreasonable" and "totally unfair"; hoped Stein would develop "better understanding" after short recess, use of sarcasm by saying "God!" then telling Stein had made "great argument" and allegation "crystal clear" when meant opposite; constant and lengthy interruptions during Stein's presentations-Stein unable to frame allegations coherently and requesting adjournment to rework them-Jurjans raising issue of Chairman's bias due to behaviour toward representatives-When hearing resuming, Chairman refusing to disqualify himself-On authority of Newfoundland Telephone Co. v. Newfoundland (Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 623 test is whether reasonably informed bystander could reasonably perceive bias on part of adjudicator-Chairman erring in not disqualifying himself with respect to appeal by Jurjans' clients-Did not err in not disqualifying himself with respect to Stein's clients' appeals-Critical and harsh comments made to Jurjans created reasonable apprehension of bias not cured by adjournment-Chairman's conduct toward Stein unacceptable but not creating reasonable apprehension of bias and unfairness cured by adjournment.