Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

Ewing v. Canada ( Attorney General )

T-2401-98

Blais J.

30/6/99

10 pp.

Judicial review of dismissal of appeal against appointment following closed competition by Chairperson, Public Service Commission, Appeal Board-Chairperson finding marking of applicant's answers to 11 out of 12 questions not patently unreasonable; marking of one question patently unreasonable, but bore no impact on proposed appointment-Application allowed-Regarding onus of proof, Chairperson not creating new standard higher than "balance of probabilities" by using term "conclusive evidence"-Role of each tribunal to make decision based on conclusive or convincing evidence adduced before it-Appeal Board not departing from that standard of burden of proof-Applicant submitting, respondent conceding proper standard of review "reasonableness"-Chairperson repeatedly, consistently using term "patently unreasonable" throughout decision-Respondent submitting in reality, despite use of term "patently unreasonable", in fact applied standard of "reasonableness"-Court not convinced standard applied different than what it repeatedly, consistently expressed-Appeal Board's decision set aside.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.