Andrew Raven

The appellant, a federal public servant, was discharged after engaging in a sustained and highly visible public campaign criticizing major government policies, including metric conversion and the Charter of Rights.

He grieved his discharge, but an adjudicator upheld it, finding his conduct impaired his ability to perform his duties and violated his duty of loyalty.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed his application for judicial review.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that while public servants have some freedom of speech, it is not absolute and must be balanced against the need for an impartial and effective public service.

The Court found the adjudicator did not err in inferring impairment of effectiveness from the extreme nature of the appellant's public criticisms.

The appellant, a correctional officer, was denied eligibility for promotion because a Parliamentary Subcommittee report named him as the instigator of a prison riot, resulting in notoriety.

The Selection Board excluded him based on a restriction imposed by the Commissioner of Penitentiaries.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that 'merit' under s. 10 of the Public Service Employment Act refers only to intrinsic characteristics, and the Selection Board should not have considered the unproven allegations.

The Court ruled that the Appeal Board, under s. 21, had a statutory duty to inquire into the truth of the Subcommittee's findings.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Appeal Board.

The appellant was the top candidate in two closed competitions for clerical positions with the RCMP but was denied the required 'Top Secret Security Clearance' without reasons.

She appealed the subsequent appointments of lower-ranked candidates to the Public Service Commission Appeal Board, which allowed her appeal on the basis that it could review the reasonableness of the security clearance denial.

The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the Board's decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appellant's appeal, holding that the requirement of a security clearance is a condition of appointment within management's authority, not an evaluation of relative merit under the Public Service Employment Act, and therefore cannot be reviewed by an Appeal Board under section 21.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal that dismissed an application to review and set aside a decision of the Public Service Appeal Board.

The Board had allowed an appeal against the proposed appointment of the appellant to a position in the Public Service without affording him the opportunity to be heard.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, set aside the decisions below, and referred the matter back to the Board for a new hearing, directing that the appellant be given notice and an opportunity to be heard.