Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

Home Arbitration/Labour Relations Federal Court of Appeal rejects bid by worker to introduce new evidence from 1993 in decades old grievance against PSAC

Federal Court of Appeal rejects bid by worker to introduce new evidence from 1993 in decades old grievance against PSAC

by HR Law Canada

The Federal Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal against the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board’s dismissal of a worker’s duty of fair representation (DFR) complaint from nearly three decades ago.

The worker, V.W., had alleged that the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) failed to fairly represent him in his 1997 termination grievance.

The court upheld the Board’s decision to summarily dismiss V.W.’s complaint, which he claimed was unreasonable and procedurally unfair. The Board determined that the complaint was “trivial, frivolous, vexatious or was made in bad faith,” as allowed under section 21 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act.

V.W.’s attempt to introduce two letters from 1993 as new evidence in his case was also denied by the court, which ruled that the documents were irrelevant to the Board’s original decision-making process.

“The letters were not before the Board and do not fall into any of the recognized exceptions for admitting evidence not before the decision-maker,” the ruling stated, referencing a precedent set in the 2012 Access Copyright case.

Addressing claims of procedural unfairness, the court found no evidence of bias or conflict of interest. It also ruled that the Board did not err in deciding the matter without an oral hearing, noting, “The Board is expressly authorized to do so,” according to the legislation governing its operations.

Reflecting on the historical context, the court mentioned that V.W.’s initial grievance was dismissed in 1997, and subsequent legal challenges were unsuccessful. This included a 2000 judicial review application that was dismissed for being brought three years after the relevant events.

The court’s decision reiterated the Board’s position that the complaint was an attempt to relitigate settled issues. “The Board reasonably concluded that the applicant was attempting to revive a matter that was settled long ago,” the court explained.

In its concluding remarks, the court underscored the reasonableness of the Board’s decision, citing the “justification, transparency, and intelligibility” of its reasons, which align with the principles set out in the landmark 2019 Vavilov case.

The application and motion were dismissed without costs, finalizing the court’s stance on the matter.

For more information, see Walcott v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, 2024 FCA 68 (CanLII).

You may also like