Vaughan v. Canada

Vaughan v. Canada

The appeal was dismissed because the claim for ERI entitlement arises from the appellant's terms and conditions of federal public service employment and is governed by the PSSRA grievance scheme; Parliament intended that scheme to be the exclusive resolution code for such disputes, the appellant failed to pursue the mandated section 91 process and potential judicial review, and thus the Statement of Claim discloses no cause of action in court.

Citation
2001 FCT 1233
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: William Thomas Vaughan; Defendant/respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Prothonotary Order Striking Statement of Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Grievance Procedure, Jurisdictional Ouster, Strike Out of Pleading, Early Retirement Incentive, Statutory Code Vs Court Jurisdiction
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Employment Law Labour Law Public Law Procedural Law Grievance Procedure Jurisdictional Ouster Strike Out of Pleading +2 more

Case Brief

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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Thomas Vaughan

Plaintiff/appellant

Her Majesty the Queen

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Prothonotary Order Striking Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Statement of Claim discloses a reasonable cause of action
  2. 2 Whether the Public Service Staff Relations Act (PSSRA) and its grievance scheme oust court jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was required to exhaust the statutory grievance/judicial review route before litigating in court

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the claim for ERI entitlement arises from the appellant's terms and conditions of federal public service employment and is governed by the PSSRA grievance scheme; Parliament intended that scheme to be the exclusive resolution code for such disputes, the appellant failed to pursue the mandated section 91 process and potential judicial review, and thus the Statement of Claim discloses no cause of action in court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Order of Prothonotary Aronovitch dated January 31, 2000 striking the Statement of Claim is confirmed
  • Appeal dismissed with costs