Case information

None.

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 Appellant was employed as a mechanical engineer with the Department of Public Works from 1975 until 1996. He was notified in October 1994 that he was surplus and that he would be laid off as of April 12, 1995. Under the Work Force Adjustment Directive ("WFAD") he was entitled to receive at least one reasonable job offer within the public service before being laid off. In February 1995, the Appellant was offered another position, with an effective date to be determined. The Appellant advised his employer that he understood an early retirement incentive program ("ERI") would soon be available, and requested that he be provided with benefits under the program as of April 1, 1995, when it would become available. The benefits were not offered under the terms of the collective agreement. Benefits under the program were not available to employees who had received a reasonable job offer before leaving the federal public service. The Appellant's lay-off date was meanwhile extended to July 1995. The Appellant indicated that he did not regard the job offer as reasonable, since it was subject to conditions. His application for ERI was nonetheless rejected on the basis that he had received a reasonable job offer.

The Appellant filed a grievance alleging non-compliance with the WFAD and his grievance was allowed at the second level. The Executive Committee of the National Joint Council found that the job offer was not reasonable and that his lay-off was therefore not in accordance with the WFAD. He was then offered an indeterminate, unconditional appointment equivalent to his previous position. He advised the supervisor that his employment in the private sector made it unlikely that he would be able to start the new position for several months. The Appellant advised that he intended to take his grievance to the next level of the process, since his claim for ERI benefits had not been addressed. The Respondent treated this as a rejection of the offer of employment. The Appellant's grievance was referred to an independent adjudicator. The adjudicator confirmed the conclusion of the National Joint Council, and also found that the second offer was reasonable and had been rejected by the Appellant's failure to report to work. The adjudicator ordered that the Appellant be paid the separation benefits to which he was entitled under the collective agreement, but stated that he had no authority to determine the Appellant's eligibility for ERI benefits because they arose from statute and not from the collective agreement.

The Appellant commenced an action in negligence against the Respondent claiming that his employer had failed to take the steps necessary to enable him to receive the benefit of the ERI program, and claiming damages and a declaration that he was entitled to ERI benefits. A Prothonotary found that the jurisdiction of the courts was ousted by the statutory scheme under the PSSRA and granted a motion by the Respondent to strike the Appellant's statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. On appeal to a judge of the Federal Court, Trial Division, the appeal was dismissed, and a further appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal was dismissed.