The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal hears complaints related to reprisals taken against federal public servants following the disclosure of wrongdoings. This tribunal rarely sits given the low volume of files generated by its highly specialized jurisdiction. After years of proceedings, the complainant managed to obtain a hearing before the tribunal, despite the fact that the Canadian Public Sector Integrity Commissioner’s investigation had found that the complaint was unfounded. Our client was one of the public servants named in the reprisal complaint.
In her decision of November 13, 2019, the Honourable Martine St-Louis fully exonerated our client and concluded that the applicant had not shown that any reprisals, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, had been taken against him and dismissed his application.
The facts of this case occurred over several years. The applicant alleged that emails sent on April 1 and 2, 2009, constituted a disclosure to his supervisors protected under section 12 of the Act. Moreover, on January 5, 2013, the applicant also filed a reprisal complaint with the Commissioner, describing the measure taken against him as the usurpation of the employment to which he had a clear right and confirmed that the reprisals were taken against him on September 10, 2012, the date of a letter stating the Public Prosecution Service of Canada’s final decision to reclassify two LA-2B positions rather than appoint from the pool, i.e., to give him the coveted position even though he had decided not to apply for such a position. This was a special case because the Tribunal rarely sits and it was the second trial on the merits. The hearing proceeded very differently from the way prescribed in the Act because the Commissioner argued that the application should be dismissed, which is exceptional. It is also the conclusion to several years of proceedings instituted by the complainant to bring the case before the Court.
The applicant did not demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, the existence of a link between his disclosure to the Office of the Commissioner and the reclassification of the two positions. He thus did not prove that a measure was taken against him because he made a disclosure.
This judgment has confirmed our client’s integrity and his reputation remained intact.
A Fasken team led by Antoine Aylwin and Louis P. Bernier, assisted by Xin Jia Want, successfully advised the federal public servant (individual defendant) during his defence in this case.
In her decision of November 13, 2019, the Honourable Martine St-Louis fully exonerated our client and concluded that the applicant had not shown that any reprisals, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, had been taken against him and dismissed his application.
The facts of this case occurred over several years. The applicant alleged that emails sent on April 1 and 2, 2009, constituted a disclosure to his supervisors protected under section 12 of the Act. Moreover, on January 5, 2013, the applicant also filed a reprisal complaint with the Commissioner, describing the measure taken against him as the usurpation of the employment to which he had a clear right and confirmed that the reprisals were taken against him on September 10, 2012, the date of a letter stating the Public Prosecution Service of Canada’s final decision to reclassify two LA-2B positions rather than appoint from the pool, i.e., to give him the coveted position even though he had decided not to apply for such a position. This was a special case because the Tribunal rarely sits and it was the second trial on the merits. The hearing proceeded very differently from the way prescribed in the Act because the Commissioner argued that the application should be dismissed, which is exceptional. It is also the conclusion to several years of proceedings instituted by the complainant to bring the case before the Court.
The applicant did not demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, the existence of a link between his disclosure to the Office of the Commissioner and the reclassification of the two positions. He thus did not prove that a measure was taken against him because he made a disclosure.
This judgment has confirmed our client’s integrity and his reputation remained intact.
A Fasken team led by Antoine Aylwin and Louis P. Bernier, assisted by Xin Jia Want, successfully advised the federal public servant (individual defendant) during his defence in this case.
