Maurice W. Wright

The appellant union challenged the federal Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act, which extended collective agreements and fixed wage increases for public sector employees, arguing it violated freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter and equality before the law under s. 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

The majority held that the guarantee of freedom of association does not include a constitutional guarantee of the right to bargain collectively and the right to strike.

The Court also found no violation of the Canadian Bill of Rights, as the legislation was directed at a valid federal objective of dampening inflationary expectations.

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.