Date: 20030424
Docket: T-2000-01
Citation: 2003 FCT 506
Ottawa, Ontario, the 24th day of April 2003
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SIMON NOËL
BETWEEN:
PIERRE LEDUC
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
(CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY)
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Through this application for judicial review, the applicant is asking the Court to find that the decision of Board member Jean-Pierre Tessier of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, dated October 9, 2001, to the effect that the mileage and parking paid by him for the years 1996 to 1999 could not be claimed since no authorization had been obtained from the employer for the use of his personal automobile, be declared patently unreasonable and that the matter be sent back to the Board.
[2] The applicant works continuously one kilometre from his employer's office, at a client of his employer. He is seeking reimbursement for fixed mileage and the cost of parking for his personal automobile.
[3] The applicant submits that, because he was on government business at a client of his employer almost continuously and his employer had given him annual travel authority each year from 1996 to 1999, the express authorization to use his personal automobile was not required. He bases his argument on clauses 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5 of the Travel Directive in the Treasury Board Manual (hereinafter "Directive").
[4] The Court should not intervene in proceedings involving review of decisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Board unless the decision is patently unreasonable: Canada (A.G.) v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 941, paragraphs 24-27.
[5] To apply the notion of patently unreasonable, the Court must ask itself whether the decision in question is clearly irrational, that is, that it is not justified by the facts as presented or the law that is cited in support. A decision that is simply wrong will not warrant the designation of patently unreasonable.
[6] In this case, the Board member, after quoting extracts from two documents, the annual travel authority and clause 1.1.1 of the Directive, held that the applicant "should have obtained specific authorization to use his private vehicle and that the travel policies make it clear that the least-cost option must be preferred".
[7] It is true that in reaching this conclusion, the Board member did not resort specifically to clauses 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5 of the Directive. However, the record shows that the Board member did have the Directive as well as several other documents in front of him.
[8] Contrary to the applicant's submissions, clauses 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5 of the Directive need not be construed literally; they should be understood by taking into account the Directive as a whole. In neither these specific clauses nor the Directive as a whole do I read any concept of implied authority by the employer to the use of a personal vehicle by the employee.
[9] The Directive requires that an employee, for travel purposes, obtain the appropriate authority from the employer. This is indicated, for example, by the purpose and scope of clauses 1.1 (authorization) and 2.10 (private vehicles) of the Directive. Clauses 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5 do not make any exception to this principle.
[10] In conclusion, therefore, the decision of Board member Jean-Pierre Tessier, dated October 9, 2001, is not patently unreasonable. On the contrary, it accurately reflects the spirit and the letter of the Directive.
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The application for judicial review is dismissed with costs.
"Simon Noël"
Judge
Certified true translation
Suzanne Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-2000-01
STYLE: PIERRE LEDUC
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: April 8, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SIMON NOËL
DATED: April 24, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Sean T. McGee and Annie Berthiaume FOR THE APPLICANT
Karl Chemsi FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Nelligan, O'Brien, Payne LLP FOR THE APPLICANT
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Minister and
Deputy Attorney General of Canada