Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content





Date: 20010124


Docket: A-846-99


CORAM:      THE CHIEF JUSTICE

         ROTHSTEIN J.A.

         MALONE J.A.

BETWEEN:

     JEANNE PAGNAN

     Appellant

     - and -


     ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

     Respondent






Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on Wednesday, January 24, 2001.

JUDGMENT delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on Wednesday, January 24, 2001.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:      MALONE J.A.

    




Date: 20010124


Docket: A-846-99


CORAM:      THE CHIEF JUSTICE

         ROTHSTEIN J.A.

         MALONE J.A.

BETWEEN:

     JEANNE PAGNAN

     Appellant

     - and -


     ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

     Respondent



     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

     (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on Wednesday, January 24, 2001)



MALONE J.A.

         _.      This is an appeal from an Order of the Honourable Mr. Justice Allan Lutfy, as he then was, of the Trial Division of this Court dismissing the Appellant's application for judicial review of the decision of Public Service Commission Investigator Anna Preto dated 29 October 1997.1
         _.      Investigator Preto conducted an investigation pursuant to section 7.1 of the Public Service Employment Act ("PSEA") into the appellant's allegation that the Canadian Wildlife Service ("CWS") of the Department of the Environment ("the Department") had failed to regularize her employment status during the time that she was performing the duties of Programme Coordinator for an international program known as the conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna ("CAFF"). She found that the Appellant's allegations were not founded on the evidence before her and that no further intervention by the Public Service Commission ("the Commission") was warranted.2
         _.      Lutfy J. found no reviewable error in Investigator Preto's report.
         _.      In our opinion, Lutfy J. correctly concluded that the findings of fact made by the Investigator were reasonable and disclosed no reviewable error. He did not err in characterizing the Investigator's conclusions as findings of fact or by applying an incorrect standard of review. The appeal will accordingly be dismissed with costs.

     (B. Malone)

     J.A.


__________________

1. Reported as [1999] F.C.J. No. 1838, online: QL (FCJ).

2. Appeal Book, tab 4, pp. 71-92.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.