Case information

Administrative law — Boards and tribunals — Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal — Employee making application to Tribunal because of reprisal allegedly taken against him for protected disclosure — Federal Court of Appeal dismissing appeal from application for judicial review of Tribunal’s decision to dismiss complaint relating to reprisal — Proper interpretation and application of Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, S.C. 2005, c. 46 — Legal principles forming analytical framework for reprisal complaints and supporting achievement of purposes of Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, S.C. 2005, c. 46.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant, Mr. Agnaou, is a lawyer. He worked as a prosecutor at the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (“PPSC”). In that position, he was given responsibility for a file in which he determined that criminal charges should be laid. In 2009, the applicant received a decision from his superiors that proceedings would not be instituted. The applicant wrote emails to his supervisor and later identified those emails as protected disclosures under s. 12 of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (“Act”). The applicant and the PPSC signed a memorandum of understanding under which PPSC granted the applicant leave, following which he was to have priority with the Public Service Commission for one year. In exchange, the applicant promised to withdraw all his complaints and grievances and to leave the PPSC. A few days later, the applicant learned that he had qualified in a pool for positions at a higher level than the one he held. In 2012, the PPSC used that pool to propose the appointment of two other lawyers to positions at that level. After the applicant asserted his priority entitlement, the PPSC decided to abandon the appointment process involving the pool and to reclassify the positions instead. On January 7, 2013, the applicant filed a reprisal complaint with the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. After hearing the complaint, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal found that the applicant had not proved on a balance of probabilities that he had made a protected internal disclosure in April 2009 or that the measure taken in his case had been taken because he had made a protected disclosure. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the complaint. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal.

---

---

---