He claimed that the dismissal process was biased and unreasonable
The Federal Court of Appeal has upheld the dismissal of a complaint from a former employee, who contended that the Public Service Alliance of Canada had not fulfilled its duty to represent him fairly in a grievance concerning his termination.
The dispute in Walcott v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, 2024 FCA 68 started when the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board initially dismissed Victor Walcott's termination grievance. Walcott claimed that the dismissal process and the board’s decision were biased and unreasonable.
Adding complexity to the case, Walcott recently sought to introduce new evidence in the form of two letters from 1993 related to his grievance via a motion during the judicial review. However, the respondent contested this motion.
Most Read
In its decision, the Federal Court of Appeal noted that Walcott's proposed evidence was not originally presented before the board and did not meet any recognized exceptions for introducing new evidence at the judicial review stage. Accordingly, the court dismissed the motion to admit the evidence, stating that their inclusion would not have influenced the application’s outcome.
Further, the court dismissed Walcott's claims of procedural unfairness, including allegations of bias and the inappropriateness of the board deciding the case without an oral hearing. The court found these claims unsupported by evidence. The court highlighted that the board is legally empowered to decide matters without oral hearings under s. 22 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act.
Moreover, the court concurred with the board's determination that Walcott’s complaint was without merit, referencing the board's authority to dismiss summarily any matter it considers trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith.
The court also referenced the long history of legal proceedings related to this matter, noting that earlier decisions had conclusively settled the original grievance and subsequent complaints. This included a judicial review application struck by the Federal Court and an earlier fair representation complaint dismissed for delay.
Ultimately, the court confirmed the reasonableness of the board’s summary dismissal, opting to dismiss Walcott's application and motion without costs, reinforcing the legal principle that settled cases should not be reopened without compelling new evidence or arguments.
