A-307-76
Bernard Dumouchel and André Masse (Appli-
cants)
v.
Appeal Board, Public Service Commission
(Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Jackett C.J., Pratte and Le Dain
JJ.—Ottawa, October 6, 1976.
Judicial review—Public Service—Whether persons on eligi
bility list are entitled to a hearing by Appeal Board under s. 21
of Public Service Employment Act—Whether Board's inquiry
complete—Whether decision based on errors of fact—Public
Service Employment Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. P-32, s. 21.
Applicants claim that eligible candidates may be heard by
the Appeal Board under section 21 of the Public Service
Employment Act. They further claim that the Board's inquiry
was incomplete and that its decision was based on arbitrarily
chosen errors of fact.
Held, the appeal is rejected. Section 21 describes precisely
those persons who may be heard by the Appeal Board. The
allegations concerning the Board's inquiry are unfounded. If
the competition was declared void it was the fault of the
organizers and not of the candidates.
APPLICATION for judicial review.
COUNSEL:
Grégoire LeHoux for applicants.
Yvon Brisson for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Grégoire LeHoux, Ottawa, for applicants.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent.
The following is the English version of the
reasons for judgment of the Court delivered orally
by
PRATTE J.: In our opinion, the application must
be dismissed.
We are all agreed that, contrary to what was
ably argued by counsel for the applicants, in the
case of an appeal brought under section 21 of the
Public Service Employment Act' candidates
whose names have been placed on the eligibility
list are not entitled to a hearing before the Appeals
Board. Section 21 specifies the people who are so
entitled, and only those people may benefit from it.
We are also of opinion that the other two argu
ments made by counsel for the applicants, namely
that the inquiry of the Board was incomplete and
that its decision was based on erroneous findings of
fact arrived at in an arbitrary manner, have no
basis.
It is perhaps useful to observe in conclusion that
we do not find it possible to interpret the Board's
decision as casting blame on the applicants and
other candidates who passed the competition. If
this competition was declared void, it is not the
fault of those who took part in it, but of those who
organized it.
' R.S.C. 1970, c. P-32.
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.