The Public Service Alliance of Canada has lost its bid to force the federal government to turn over additional documents in its legal challenge of new hybrid work rules that require federal employees to work in the office at least three days per week.
The Federal Court dismissed the union’s motion for expanded document production, ruling that the request was too broad and amounted to a “fishing expedition” that went beyond what’s permitted under the court’s disclosure rules.
Background
PSAC, which represents several bargaining units of federal public servants, is challenging a decision by the Treasury Board Secretariat that amended workplace attendance requirements. The original direction from December 2022 required employees in the core public administration to attend the workplace for a minimum of two to three days per week, or 40 to 60 per cent of a regular work schedule.
In May 2024, the Board’s Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer amended the direction to require employees to attend the workplace a minimum of three days per week, or 60 per cent of a regular work schedule. The amendments also “altered the objectives of the Direction and narrowed approved exceptions.” The amended direction was to be fully implemented by September 2024.
The union’s legal challenge alleges that the amendments to the direction were “an ongoing abuse of the employer’s authority.”
Document production dispute
After receiving the certified tribunal record in October 2024, PSAC brought a motion seeking leave to amend its notice of application and requesting production of additional documents. While the government consented to the amendments, it opposed the production request.
The union specifically requested “all email discussions and meeting records, including but not limited to all notes and minutes, pertaining to any discussions or meetings held in the decision-making process, or which related to the decision-making process, leading to the amendment of the Direction.”
The court noted that PSAC’s request covered “any and all documents created in or related to the decision-making process” rather than being limited to documents that might support specific allegations of abuse of authority.
Court’s analysis of disclosure rules
The court outlined the established principles governing document disclosure under Rule 317 of the Federal Courts Rules. The rule generally requires disclosure only of material that was before the decision-maker when the decision under review was made, with certain exceptions.
The court noted that where there are allegations of “breach of procedural fairness, reasonable apprehension of bias, or bias,” the scope of disclosure may be broadened to include additional relevant documents. However, even this expanded scope “does not permit a party to embark on a fishing expedition in the hope of discovering material to establish their claim.”
While PSAC’s notice of application didn’t allege bias or procedural unfairness, it did allege abuse of authority. The court acknowledged that “the applicant’s abuse of authority allegations are similar in nature to an allegation of bias, and do not close the door to the possibility of disclosure of materials beyond what was before the decision-maker.”
Insufficient factual basis
Despite this acknowledgment, the court found that PSAC had not provided sufficient evidence to justify broader document production. The union pointed to 11 meetings referenced in the tribunal record — seven between the Public Service Management Advisory Committee and Board of Management and Renewal, and four described as “discussions and meetings with departments and separate agencies.” The union also highlighted 16 slide decks and calendar invitations in the record.
However, the court found this insufficient, stating: “I am not satisfied that a generally phrased allegation of abuse of authority, combined with evidence of meetings and slide decks that may have been presented at those meetings, are sufficient to depart from the general principle that only the materials before the decision-maker are subject to Rule 317 production.”
The court emphasized that “the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that production should be ordered” and found that PSAC had not met this burden.
Comparison to other cases
The court referenced several precedent cases to support its decision. In one case, an applicant made a broad document request hoping to support a finding of interference in the decision-making process, but the Court of Appeal found “an absence of a factual basis to justify such a concern.”
In contrast, the court cited a recent case where broader disclosure was ordered after an appellant provided specific examples of public and media pressure on the Canada Revenue Agency, demonstrating a clear connection between alleged misconduct and evidence in the record.
“In JNF, the appellant was able to connect the dots between alleged public pressure and what was found in the CTR. Here, that is not the case,” the court noted.
Court’s concerns about fishing expeditions
The court strongly emphasized the limits of Rule 317, stating that it “does not serve the same purpose as documentary discovery in an action” and cannot be used for fishing expeditions. The court noted that “attempts to use Rule 317 for a fishing expedition are common and the Court must never permit it.”
The ruling stressed that requests for documents must be targeted and supported by evidence, not speculative: “Requests for all documents that could potentially bear on a matter in hopes of establishing relevance have no place under Rule 317.”
The court dismissed PSAC’s motion for additional document production while granting leave to file an amended notice of application. The union was ordered to pay costs of $900 to the federal government.
For more information, see Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 1126 (CanLII).
