Wilkinson v. Canada (Attorney General)

Wilkinson v. Canada (Attorney General)

The Deputy Head’s decision was unreasonable and unintelligible because he relied on a deficient chart that omitted significant portions of the MRP work description, failed to consider the entire work description against the classification standard, and did not adequately explain why he rejected the Committee’s...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2016 FC 1062
Parties
Applicants: MURRAY WILKINSON et al.; Respondent: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Administrative Decision / Final Judgment (federal Court)
Outcome
Application allowed; decision of the Deputy Head set aside and referred back for redetermination; Applicants awarded costs of $8,000.
Legal Topics
Classification of Position, Reclassification Grievance, Reasonableness Review, Reasons for Decision, Remedy Remit, Costs
Source Language
english
Administrative Law Employment Law Public Service/labour Relations Judicial Review Classification of Position Reclassification Grievance Reasonableness Review Reasons for Decision +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MURRAY WILKINSON et al.

Applicants

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Administrative Decision / Final Judgment (federal Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Deputy Head’s refusal to adopt the Classification Grievance Committee recommendation was reasonable
  2. 2 Whether the Deputy Head failed to consider the entire work description and relied on irrelevant/deficient material
  3. 3 Whether the Deputy Head’s reasons were intelligible such that the decision could be reviewed

Ratio Decidendi

The Deputy Head’s decision was unreasonable and unintelligible because he relied on a deficient chart that omitted significant portions of the MRP work description, failed to consider the entire work description against the classification standard, and did not adequately explain why he rejected the Committee’s detailed unanimous recommendation; accordingly the decision is set aside and remitted for redetermination after full consideration of the work description.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; decision of the Deputy Head set aside and referred back for redetermination; Applicants awarded costs of $8,000.

Orders

  • The decision of the Deputy Head dated May 19, 2015 is set aside.
  • The grievance and the Committee’s recommendation are referred back to the Deputy Head for redetermination after considering the entirety of the MRP work description.