Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Date: 20151110

Docket: A-566-14

Citation: 2015 FCA 252

Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on November 10, 2015.

Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on November 10, 2015.

Date: 20151110

Docket: A-566-14

Citation: 2015 FCA 252

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Delivered from the bench at Ottawa, Ontario,

on November 10, 2015.)

NADON J.A.:

[1]               We are all of the opinion that there is no reason to intervene.

[2]               We are not satisfied that the Judge erred in finding, as he did, that the appellant’s application for judicial review should be denied.

[3]               Notwithstanding Mr. McGee’s very apt arguments, we do not believe that the criteria pertaining to estoppel are met in this case;

[4]               Specifically, we are of the opinion that the evidence of record does not support the appellant’s argument that Mr. Rancourt had allegedly made him a promise guaranteeing a salary at the AS-04 level with Public Works and Government Services Canada.

[5]               Before concluding, it should be noted that the only theory argued before this Court by the appellant, namely estoppel, was not brought to the attention of the administrative decision maker whose decision is challenged by the appellant’s application for judicial review. Moreover, even though that theory seems to have been argued orally before Justice Martineau, it does not appear in the brief filed by the appellant before the Federal Court.

[6]               Therefore, the appeal is dismissed with costs.

“M. Nadon”

Certified true translation

Francois Brunet, revisor

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: