A-196-76
Attorney General of Canada (Applicant)
v.
Public Service Staff Relations Board (Respond-
ent)
Court of Appeal, Pratte, Le Dain and Ryan JJ.—
Ottawa, October 19, 1976.
Judicial review—Public Service—Application to set aside
decision of adjudicator substituting for the discharge of
intervenant a suspension of one month—Claim that adjudica
tor erred in law in limiting evidence to facts relevant to
grounds for discharge formulated at time of discharge—
Applicant expressed no desire to amend or add to charges
during hearing—Application dismissed—Federal Court Act, s.
28.
APPLICATION.
COUNSEL:
P. B. Annis for applicant.
M. W. Wright, Q.C., for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
applicant.
Soloway, Wright, Houston, Greenberg,
O'Grady & Morin, Ottawa, for respondent.
The following are the reasons for judgment of
the Court delivered orally in English by
LE DAIN J.: This is a section 28 application to
review and set aside the decision of an adjudicator
under the Public Service Staff Relations Act'
substituting for the discharge of the intervenant a
suspension of one month. The principal objection
to the decision of the adjudicator is that he erred
in law in taking the position that the grounds for
discharge formulated at the time of discharge
determined the limits of the evidence that could be
adduced and the offences that could be considered.
The applicant complains that he was not permitted
to adduce evidence on the ground that it was
irrelevant to the specified offences, and that the
adjudicator should have found, on the evidence,
that there were offences in addition to those speci-
' R.S.C. 1970, c. P-35.
lied. It is clear from the record that the applicant
took the position at the outset of the hearing that
he did not desire to amend or add to the charges
other than to the extent to which the parties had
agreed, and there is nothing to suggest that he
departed from this position at any time thereafter
during the hearing. In these circumstances, we are
all of the opinion that the adjudicator did not err
in law in ruling that evidence must be confined to
what was relevant to the charges as specified, and
in concluding that the intervenant's failure to
retain Pisani in custody was not included in the
specified offence that he did "associate" with the
said Pisani. We do not find any merit in the other
contentions of the applicant. The application will
accordingly be dismissed.
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.