Docket: A-87-97
OTTAWA, THIS 12th DAY OF MARCH 1998
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRATTE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DENAULT
THE HONOURABLE MADAME JUSTICE DESJARDINS
BETWEEN:
PIERRE BENGE,
Appellant,
- and -
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
APPEAL BOARD,
Respondent.
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Louis Pratte
Certified true translation
C. Delon, LL.L.
Date: 19980312
Docket: A-87-97
CORAM: PRATTE J.A.
DENAULT J.A.
DESJARDINS J.A.
BETWEEN:
PIERRE BENGE,
Appellant,
- and -
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
APPEAL BOARD,
Respondent.
Hearing held at Ottawa, Ontario, on Thursday, March 12, 1998.
Judgment delivered from the bench on Thursday, March 12, 1998.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: PRATTE J.A.
Date: 19980312
Docket: A-87-97
CORAM: PRATTE J.A.
DENAULT J.A.
DESJARDINS J.A.
BETWEEN:
PIERRE BENGE,
Appellant,
- and -
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
APPEAL BOARD,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Ottawa, Ontario,
on Thursday, March 12, 1998
PRATTE J.A.
[1] The appellant has appealed from an order of Mr. Justice Lutfy of the Trial Division dismissing the application for judicial review by the appellant seeking to have the decision of an Appeal Board established under section 21 of the Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-33, set aside.
[2] The appellant applied in a competition held to fill the position of Senior Intelligence Analyst (analyste principal du renseignement) in the Customs Operations Branch. His application was rejected on the sole ground that he did not have the necessary experience, that is, "experience in intelligence analysis". The applicant, who had worked for two years at the Unemployment Insurance Commission, where he had to interpret regulations, interview claimants and employers, and do research into eligibility criteria for unemployment insurance, argued that because of that he had the necessary experience to fill the position he was seeking. Accordingly, he appealed the decision rejecting his application to an Appeal Board established under section 21 of the Public Service Employment Act. The Board dismissed his appeal on the ground that the appellant had not proved that he had the experience required. That is the decision that was the subject of the application for judicial review that was dismissed by Lutfy J.
[3] The appellant can succeed only if the Appeal Board committed one or more of the errors listed in subsection 18.2(4) of the Federal Court Act, and that was the only condition on which Lutfy J. could have set aside the Board's decision.
[4] The error that the appellant alleges was committed by the Board and by Lutfy J. is that they ignored the fact that he met the requirements relating to experience as they were stated in the notice of competition and statement of qualifications, and accordingly that they also ignored the fact that his application had been rejected because requirements other than those set out in the notice of competition and statement of qualifications were imposed on him.
[5] In our view, these arguments are without basis. The experience required was described in the notice of competition and statement of qualifications as "Experience in Intelligence Analysis" ("[l']expérience de l'analyse du renseignement"). The meaning of those expressions, in either English or French, is not very clear to an ordinary mortal. It is plain, however, that they are referring to something other than simply collecting and analysing information as an official administering the Unemployment Insurance Act is required to do. Accordingly, it cannot be said that by giving these expressions a narrower meaning than the meaning given to them by the appellant, conditions were added to those set out in the notice of competition and statement of qualifications.
[6] The appeal will therefore be dismissed with costs.
"Louis Pratte"
J.A.
Certified true translation
C. Delon, LL.L.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date: 19980312
Docket: A-87-97
BETWEEN:
PIERRE BENGE,
Appellant,
- and -
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
APPEAL BOARD,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO: A-87-97
APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL DIVISION DATED JANUARY 29, 1997, TRIAL DIVISION FILE NO. T-1538-96
STYLE OF CAUSE: Pierre Benge v. Public Service
Commission Appeal Board
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: March 12, 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Pratte, Denault & Desjardins JJ.A.)
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Pratte J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Pierre Benge representing himself
Anick Pelletier for the respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Pierre Benge
Ottawa, Ontario representing himself
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario for the respondent