Archambault v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency)

Archambault v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency)

The Federal Court correctly determined the designated adjudicator lacked jurisdiction under s.92 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act; there was no error warranting appellate intervention, and the appeal is dismissed with costs.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2006 FCA 63
Parties
Appellant: Pierre Archambault; Respondent: Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (Attorney General of Canada)
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Federal Court (judicial Review) / Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; Federal Court decision affirmed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Section 92 PSSRA, Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions, Costs
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Labour Law Public Service Labour Relations Judicial Review Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Section 92 PSSRA Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Costs

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pierre Archambault

Appellant

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (Attorney General of Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Federal Court (judicial Review) / Final Judgment on Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the Federal Court erred in dismissing the appellant's application for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the designated adjudicator had jurisdiction under s.92 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act
  3. 3 Whether the order as to costs should be quashed

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Court correctly determined the designated adjudicator lacked jurisdiction under s.92 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act; there was no error warranting appellate intervention, and the appeal is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; Federal Court decision affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Order of the Federal Court dated February 7, 2005 (2005 FC 183) affirmed.