GSB#0622/01
UNION#01B212
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Perez)
Grievor
-and-
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social Services)
Employer
BEFORE Randi H. Abramsky Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION John Brewin Counsel Ryder Wright Blair & Doyle
FOR THE EMPLOYER Ferina Murji Counsel Management Board Secretariat
HEARING July 25 & 26, 2002.
AWARD
This matter involves grievances filed by sixteen employees who participated in a job competition for nineteen temporary Income Support Specialist (ISS) positions in the Ministry of Community and Social Services (now, the Ministry of Community, Family and Children’s Services). The grievances contest the Ministry’s decision to cancel the competition after the grievors had been told that they had been the successful candidates, offered the positions and had accepted them.
At the outset of the hearing, the parties agreed to bifurcate the issues of liability and remedy, with the first issue to be whether or not the Ministry was entitled to cancel the competition under the specific facts and circumstances of this case.
Facts
The parties agreed to the following facts:
The Toronto Region of the Ministry of Community and Social Services (the “Ministry”) held a restricted competition for 16 temporary (6-month) Income Support Specialist (“ISS”) positions (“March competition”). The March competition was posted on March 7, 2001 and closed on March 20, 2001.
During the March competition process three additional vacancies opened up, and consequently there were 19 temporary ISS positions available through the competition.
Sixty-one Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) staff were interviewed for the available ISS positions. Interviews were conducted at the Toronto Regional Office between March 21 and April 24, 2001.
Verbal offers were made to the 19 successful candidates of the March competition via telephone or in person in the week commencing April 30, 2001. Each of the offers was accepted. The anticipated start dates was set for June 4, 2001. An additional 17 interviewees, who passed a benchmark of 70%, were placed on an eligibility list for direct placement in future temporary ISS positions.
In a letter dated May 9, 2001, the Ministry advised the applicants and successful candidates for the competition that staff had come forward with allegations of impropriety in the competition process. The letter went on to advise that:
Last week we verbally offered you a temporary position in one of the ODSP offices in Toronto region as a result of the Income Support Specialist competition. Since that time, some staff have come forward with serious allegations about improprieties in the competition process. After initial inquiries we have decided to conduct a full investigation, withdraw all verbal offers previously made for these positions, and re-run the competition.
Our offer to you was made in good faith. However, these unexpected events now compel us to withdraw the offer in order to ensure a fair process for all candidates.
In light of all the activities currently taking places within the ODSP, including the upcoming SDMT training, implementation, re-organization of the existing local offices, anticipated staff movement, and staff summer vacations, we will re-run the competition in the early Fall.
We will notify you when the competition will be re-run, closer to the date. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause but believe this to be the fairest way to proceed given the circumstances.
Should you have any questions please speak to your manager.
Grievances were filed by 16 of the 19 individuals who were successful in the March competition on May 14, 2001.
The comprehensive Audit and Investigations Branch conducted a formal investigation into the allegations of impropriety. The report was filed on July 9, 2001 and concluded:
It is inconclusive whether there was a breach of security and/or confidentiality of the ISS competition file (questions/answers) prior to or during the ISS competition.
There is evidence that specific questions were used in the ISS competition were shared among candidates at [the ODSP local office, 1870 Wilson Avenue, Toronto] and some were openly discussed and offered to candidates at [the ODSP local office, 1870 Wilson Avenue, Toronto] prior to their respective interviews.
On October 12, 2001 the Employer posted a competition for five permanent and 20 temporary ISS positions (“October competition”). Interviews for the October competition were conducted at the Toronto Regional Office between December 10, 2001 and December 21, 2001.
Each of the 16 Grievors, with the exception of Erisilia Nascimben, applied to the October competition.
Verbal offers for the October competition were made on January 15, 2002 and most of the successful candidates started on January 28, 2002. There were also start dates of February 4, 18, and 25, 2002.
1 Grievor was a successful applicant for a temporary position (Sarah Paratholil, start date of January 28, 2002)
1 Grievor was a successful applicant for a permanent position (Hermaine McLaughlin, start date of February 25, 2002)
5 Grievors were placed on an eligibility list for future temporary ISS positions (Jean Trotman; Jose Bertoli, Cathy Catsanos, Bartley Hennessy; and Jacqueline Clark)
8 Grievors failed the test portion of the competition and did not proceed to an interview (Cintia Perez, Nick Berardi; Bruna Patykewish, Nabila Fettah, Cristina Aguirre, Lenore Holder, Haseena Mawani, Phillip Kong).
The parties also presented viva voce evidence. Mr. Ron Strong, local Union President and Union Co-chair of the Local Employment Relations Committee (LERC), testified that the March competition was the first competition for ISS positions in a very long time. Prior to this competition, temporary ISS positions were filled simply through appointment by management. In late 2000, Mr. Strong testified that the Union requested that a fair and competitive process be developed for staff interested in developmental opportunities. Temporary ISS positions are such developmental opportunities because they allow staff to act in the position and gain experience and knowledge so that they are in a better position to compete for permanent positions when vacancies arise. In early 2001, management, in part through discussions at LERC, agreed to use a competitive process to fill such positions. The March competition followed for sixteen temporary ISS vacancies, “for up to six months” duration.
Jacqueline Smith, Income Support Manager, was Chair of the March competition panel. She, along with Bill Nolin, composed the interview questions and answers, with feedback from Human Resources. One secretary was selected to assist with the clerical requirements and book interview appointments. Significant efforts were made to ensure the security and confidentiality of the test questions and answers.
Sixty-one interviews were held between March 21, 2001 and April 24, 2001, with a number of breaks between them. Two interviews, one of which occurred on April 18 and one on April 19, 2001 raised some concern with the interview panel. On April 18, 2001, one candidate answered each question in the exact order that the interview panel had written out its sample answer. Ms. Smith testified that the answers were given “verbatim”, both in “order and wording” as their sample answers. The candidate also did much better than she expected given the candidate’s background and experience. On April 19, another candidate provided an answer to a question before the question was asked. Ms. Smith stated that both she and Mr. Nolin questioned both interviews, but at that point, although it seemed suspicious and odd, it was isolated and the process continued.
After the interviews were completed on April 24, 2002, Ms. Smith and Mr. Nolin met and went through the scores, did reference checks, finalized the scoring and formed a list of the successful candidates. A final meeting was held on April 30, 2001, and the verbal offers started being made that afternoon. The successful candidates were told that their start date would be June 4, 2001. As noted in the Agreed Statement of Facts, all of the verbal offers were accepted.
The next day, May 1, 2001, one of the successful candidates, Jacqueline Clark, a bargaining unit employee, went to Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith testified that Ms. Clark was concerned about the competition process. She told Ms. Smith that she saw questions and answers on two employee’s desks at the workplace and that the employees appeared to be memorizing them. She also stated that she had heard that one employee had the questions and answers and that others were getting them from him. In addition, she had been offered answers to the interview questions which she declined, and another employee, before Ms. Clark’s interview, told her to be sure to know her computer and to memorize her icons. Ms. Smith testified that the words “think of the icons on your computer” were one of the prompts that she and Mr. Nolin had agreed would be used, if needed, during the interview. Ms. Clark did provide specific names to Ms. Smith. One of the employees named was the employee who had answered each question with the “verbatim” answers. Ms. Smith testified that she thoroughly questioned Ms. Clark and was satisfied that she fully understood Ms. Clark’s allegations. She also asked Ms. Clark why she waited to raise these serious allegations, and she explained that she wanted to talk directly with Ms. Smith who was her manager.
Later on May 1, 2001, an acting manager approached Ms. Smith, and although no one had spoken directly to her, she had heard staff freely discussing questions and answers. A similar report was made by an ISS staff member – that she had overheard staff talking about questions and answers. The following day, another employee approached Ms. Smith, complaining about employee’s discussing questions and answers although he had not been offered them and would not provide specifics.
On May 1, 2001, Ms. Smith spoke to Bill Nolin about the allegations. They agreed that the allegations were serious and should not be ignored. Ms. Smith then contacted Human Resources, and on May 2, she provided the specifics to Shelly Borgida, Human Resources Manager, Toronto Region. She was told to stop the process, although by that time, she stated that “we had pretty much finished.” Her recommendation was to cancel the competition based on the following factors: the report from Clark about seeing the questions and answers; that Clark had personally been offered the answers; Clark’s statement that she was told to “know her computer icons” – a prompt that had been devised by the interview panel; the two suspicious interviews that had taken place; the two other reports that employees had been discussing questions and answers; and the third staff member who complained although he would not give specifics. In her view, cancellation was required because the competition had been irretrievably tainted.
Human Resources Manager Shelly Borgida testified that on May 2, 2001, she was approached by Ms. Smith and Mr. Nolin and was advised that after verbal offers had been made to candidates, a bargaining unit employee had approached them about cheating, including the specifics that had been alleged. She stated that she was very concerned by the allegations, and on May 7, she and the Regional Director met with Ms. Smith and Mr. Nolin, separately, to find out how the competition was run, what the allegations and concerns were, and how it could have happened. It was decided, after consultation with senior management and corporate human resources and employee relations, that the “right thing to do” was to withdraw the verbal offers and rerun the competition and have the allegations investigated by the Ministry’s Audit and Investigations Branch. On cross-examination, Ms. Borgida acknowledged that she was not told, at the time, that the verbal offers had been accepted by the candidates although she assumed that they had been. Ms. Borgida stated that the decision to cancel the competition was made by the Regional Director, at the recommendation of management in the Toronto region and Human Resources.
Ms. Borgida testified that the possibility that the allegations were unfounded was considered, and that was one of the reasons why the investigations branch was called in. Management also considered re-interviewing the candidates as well as holding off on the implementation of the offers until an investigation had been completed. But she felt that the competition had been tainted, that there were rumours and buzzing throughout the Ministry about improprieties in the competition, and that the Ministry could not just carry on as if the allegations had not been reported. She stated that the Ministry tries very hard to ensure that proper policies are followed, that the best qualified employees are hired and that the competition process be, in fact, and be seen as fair.
Further, she testified that the position of ISS is a position of trust. ISS employees interview clients under the Ontario Disability and Support Program (ODSP) and determine eligibility and entitlement for benefits. Given the nature of the allegations in relation to the position, if there was cheating, the employees could not be placed into the positions. The approach chosen, in her view, was a more thorough response to the situation. To wait until the completion of the investigation would have, in management’s view, left employees dangling. She testified that there was upset and anxiety in the office and that the cleanest, most thorough approach was to withdraw the verbal offers, cancel the competition and rerun it as soon as possible. Although she acknowledged that canceling the appointments may have created anxiety and upset to the successful candidates, she felt that ensuring that the competition was fair to all was in everyone’s best interest.
As a result of the cancellation of the March 2001 competition, those employees who were in temporary, acting ISS positions continued in them until the completion of the October 2001 competition. This included a number of the grievors as well as individuals who did not grieve. A number of the grievors who were in other acting positions – Income Support Clerk and Client Services Representatives - also continued in their acting assignments, although there is a significant difference in pay between those positions and an ISS. The October competition included both permanent and temporary ISS positions and was an open competition – open to the general public - whereas the March 2001 competition had been restricted to Ministry staff in the Toronto region. How the grievors fared in the October 2001 competition is outlined in paragraph 10 of the Agreed Facts.
The investigation of the March 2001 competition was undertaken and completed on July 9, 2001. The conclusions of the investigation are outlined in paragraph 7 of the Agreed Facts. It should be noted, however, that the Investigation Report was not admitted for the truth of the matters it contains. It is undisputed that the decision to cancel the competition was made on May 9, 2001, two months before the report was issued, based on the allegations made to management that led to the investigation.
Positions of the Parties
- The Union
The Union asserts that the fact that offers had been made and accepted in the March 2001 competition significantly changed the situation. It submits that instead of the standard used for canceling a competition in midstream – that the decision be based on sound and practical considerations - the standard for canceling an appointment applies. The Union asserts that with the grievors’ acceptance of the offers, there was a binding contract and a binding commitment under the collective agreement, which could only be rescinded if there was a mutual mistake.
The Union contends that there was no evidence presented which permitted the Employer to cancel the appointments. It submits that to cancel the appointment proof that cheating occurred would be required. That, in its view, would be a valid legal basis to upset the decision or impose discipline. But in this case, the Union asserts, there was no evidence of cheating at the time the decision was made – just allegations of possible cheating. The Union asserts that the allegations of cheating entitled management to investigate the allegations, but it did not give them the right to cancel the competition and the appointments made. It submits that there were many other alternatives available to the Employer, such as postponing the starting date until completion of the investigation or re-interviewing the candidates, and that cancellation was not justified.
The Union notes that although there is no evidence that the Employer consciously cancelled the competition because it did not like the successful candidates (or preferred those who were not successful), canceling the competition enabled it to continue to fill temporary ISS positions by management appointment, without any fetter at all. It notes that a competition imposes significant restrictions on management, and canceling the competition permitted the Employer to escape these limitations for a significant period of time. It asserts that management should be deemed to have intended the consequences of it actions and that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, this was a factor in management’s decision.
In support of its positions, the Union relies on Re Inglis Ltd., and Communication & Electrical Workers of Canada, Local 595 (1992), 27 L.A.C. (4th) (Brandt); Re St. John’s Training School for Boys and Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 361 (2000), 2000 CanLII 29469 (ON LA), 91 L.A.C. (4th) 76 (Knopf) and OPSEU (Leung et al) and Ministry of Finance, GSB No. 0318/00 et al. (Abramsky).
In the alternative, the Union submits that if the test is the test for canceling a competition midstream – the sound and practical reason standard – then the evidence fails to establish that the decision was sound and reasonable. The Union does not accept all of the conclusions of the investigation, but it argues that even if these conclusions are accepted they do not support the cancellation of the competition.
- The Ministry
The Ministry asserts that the standard of review to be applied in this case is the standard for canceling a job competition as set forth in OPSEU (Leung et al.) and Ministry of Finance, supra. It contends that the allegations of cheating in this case constituted “sound and practical” reasons to rescind the verbal offers made and cancel the competition. It submits that the evidence establishes that it acted in good faith, based solely on the allegations presented, which showed that the process had been tainted and the results invalid. In these circumstances, the Ministry asserts, its decision to cancel the competition was based on “sound and practical” reasons, and was the best alternative in all of the circumstances.
The Ministry asserts that the test is not whether the applicants, in fact, cheated but whether management properly acted on the information before it. It argues that there is no evidence that any unhappiness with the outcome of the competition or any other improper motive motivated management, but instead that it was motivated by its concerns about the legitimacy of the competition. In this regard, the Ministry relies on OPSEU (Boulet et al.) and Ministry of Community and Social Services, GSB No. 1189/99 (Brown) at p. 12, and two cases cited in that decision, OPSEU (Bousquet) and Ministry of Natural Resources, GSB No. 51/90 (Gorsky) and OPSEU (McIntosh) and Ministry of Government Services, GSB No.027/92 (Dissanayake) for the proposition that “what matters is the nature of the reasons underlying the decision and not whether those reasons are of sufficient weight to make the decision appear sound in the eyes of an adjudicator. The sufficiency of the reasons is for the employer to determine.” In its view, the information available to it at the time was substantial and sufficiently credible to justify its decision to cancel the competition. It submits that given the nature of the ISS position it could not be seen to be putting employees into those positions in light of the allegations of cheating and when there were substantial questions about the competition process.
The Ministry asserts that the GSB has determined that management may cancel a competition for sound and practical reasons, even after successful candidates have been selected. In support it cites to OPSEU (Magliocco) and Ministry of Correctional Services, GSB No. 213/93 (Finley) and OPSEU (Felice) and Ministry of Correctional Services, GSB No. 1304/93(Stewart).
Further, in its view, Re Inglis Ltd., supra, is distinguishable. In that case, the Ministry argues, the competition was canceled due to the Employer’s re-evaluation of its needs. In this case, the competition was cancelled because of allegations about the candidates’ improprieties, leading the Employer to reasonably conclude that the competition had not been fair.
Finally, the Ministry asserts that the investigation findings support its decision to cancel the competition, based on the conclusion that the interview questions were openly discussed. It submits that the goal of the process is a fair competition and the investigation supports the cancellation of the competition in this case.
Decision
At issue is whether the Employer properly rescinded the verbal offers made and cancelled the competition based on the allegations of improprieties that were made on May 1, 2001. The decision was made solely on the basis of the allegations made, and the matter was referred for further investigation. For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that the Employer could not properly rescind the offers and cancel the competition based solely on the allegations made.
The first matter to be decided is the standard of review to be applied in this case – whether it is the “sound and practical” business reason standard used when a job competition is cancelled, as the Ministry asserts, or a more stringent standard, based on the fact that offers had been made and accepted by the successful applicants.
In OPSEU (Leung et al) and Ministry of Finance, GSB No. 0319/00 et al (Abramsky, 2001), the Board reviewed the case law involving cancellation of a competition, noting that the Board had adopted the “sound and practical” reason standard. The Board stated, at p. 25:
The jurisprudence, both within the GSB and in the private sector, holds that once a position is posted, the employer may cancel it but only in limited circumstances. In the absence of collective agreement language expressly permitting cancellation, a competition may be cancelled when there are ‘sound and practical’ reasons to do so. Based on the case law cited by the parties, this generally means that a genuine mistake occurred so that there is, in fact, no vacancy; or unforeseen developments beyond the employer’s control occur after the posting, resulting in a change in circumstances such that no true vacancy exists. In general, there is no obligation to continue when the employer, acting in good faith and with bona fide reasons, has had to revise its position.
The Board also held that arbitrators tend to be very cautious in permitting cancellations because of the potential for abuse an unlimited discretion to cancel a competition would involve. As set forth in Re Robb Engineering, Division of Dominion Bridge Company Ltd. and United Steel Workers, Local 4122 (1978), 1978 CanLII 3439 (NS LA), 20 L.A.C. (2d) 340, 347 (MacDougal), as quoted in Leung, supra at p. 26:
The principle that says that once a job posting procedure is commenced “it must be completed through to naming the successful candidate” appears to make good sense on the face of it. The fact that if this were not so then the procedure would be open to abuse is obvious. If the candidate who was the obvious choice on seniority and ability for any reason, however whimsical, was not pleasing to management then the procedures could be aborted. This could thwart the intent of the seniority and ability provisions of the collective agreement in a given situation. …
The Union argues, however, that the standard for canceling a competition does not apply here because the competition was, in effect, completed when the successful candidates were made offers and those offers were accepted. It cites to Re Inglis Ltd. and Communication & Electrical Workers of Canada, Local 595, supra. In Re Inglis, a position was posted, candidates applied and were interviewed and the grievor, based on his seniority was told that he was the successful candidate and advised to report to work on November 11. The manager and the grievor shook hands on it and the manager was to go to human resources to “finalize” it. Afterward, the Employer re-evaluated its need for the position and cancelled the posting on November 8.
The arbitrator stated that “[t]he issue to be determined is whether or not, in the circumstances of this case, the Company was entitled to cancel the posting for the position…” (p. 149) The jurisprudence for canceling a competition was then reviewed, but the arbitrator found the case law inapplicable “since I am satisfied that the company essentially came to a decision to award the position to the grievor….” The Award continues at p. 150: “Thus, this is not a case in which the Company has cancelled the posting before it has been filled. Rather, it has purported to cancel a posting that had already been filled.” The position had been offered to the grievor and the grievor had accepted, and the role of the human resources department was merely to execute the decision made.
Accordingly, the arbitrator held that “[t]he question thus becomes one of whether or not the Company is entitled to cancel a posting that has already been filled.” (p. 151). The arbitrator held at p. 152:
In my respectful opinion the situation that obtains once the decision on a job posting has been effectively made and communicated to the employee is one that is significantly different from that where the posting process has not yet been completed. The successful candidate is entitled to enjoy the benefits of the collective agreement that attach once he/she has been confirmed in the position. It is, in my opinion, too late for the company at that stage to attempt to reverse the process.
Under the specific facts of this case, the rationale of the Re Inglis Ltd. case is quite compelling. In this matter, as there, the grievors were offered and accepted the posted positions, which the Employer subsequently cancelled. At the time the successful candidates were identified and the offers made and accepted, the competition was essentially over. As Ms. Smith testified, when she was advised to stop the process, there was not much left to be done.
The Employer, in this case, did not argue that the competition process had not been completed. Instead, it argued that it still had the right to cancel the competition based on the allegations made. I conclude, however, in light of the fact that the offers had been made and accepted, that the “sound and practical” business reason standard for canceling a competition mid-stream does not apply. I conclude, as in Re Inglis, supra at p. 152, that “the situation that obtains once the decision on a job posting has been effectively made and communicated to the employee is one that is significantly different from that where the posting process has not yet been completed.”
This does not mean, however, that the Employer should have ignored the allegations made. Quite to the contrary, the Employer had a clear obligation to act and respond to the allegations. The allegations made, as management recognized, were very serious ones. They were also credible since they came, primarily, from a bargaining unit employee who had been successful in the competition and thus put her own position at risk by coming forward. The allegations also directly correlated to the two suspicious interviews the panel noted during the interview process. Plus, other individuals corroborated that interview questions and answers had been discussed. The credibility of the allegations is a significant factor. A great deal of caution must be exercised in evaluating such allegations. Too lax a standard could allow allegations of impropriety in a competition to thwart the results of a bona fide process.
Although the allegations were credible, given the stage of the process when the allegations arose – after the successful candidates were identified, after offers had been made and accepted – the allegations were not a valid basis to cancel the competition in its entirety. Under the facts of this case, they clearly were a valid basis to postpone the implementation of the appointments, pending investigation. While that course of action would have, as the Ministry contends, left the successful applicants in a state of uncertainty for a period of time, it would have more fully recognized their status as the successful candidates in the competition. Then, depending on the outcome of the investigation, the Employer could have made the decision to rescind the appointment (s) or take disciplinary action.
At this point, I make no ruling as to whether an individual finding of improper competition activity is required before an appointment may be rescinded, or whether evidence of widespread impropriety so that the accuracy of the results of the competition cannot be assured, similar to the standards set out in the competition jurisprudence, would be sufficient. The parties did not address this question in argument, and the issue may be addressed in the next phase of this proceeding. All that is determined here is that the allegations of impropriety, standing alone, were not sufficient to withdraw the offers made and cancel the competition. In light of the fact that offers had been made and accepted, more than allegations were required.
In my view, there is also an issue as to whether the fact that this competition was for temporary vacancies that are not governed by Article 6 of the collective agreement affects the standard to be applied. This is not to imply that a fair competition is any less important for a temporary ISS position than for a permanent one. The level of trust involved in an ISS position is the same whether the position is temporary or permanent. Instead, the issue arises because Article 6 rights do not pertain to temporary vacancies except as set forth in Article 8.6.1. The temporary assignments involved in this matter were not for “greater than six (6) months’ duration” and Article 6 did not apply to them. Without deciding the issue, it is certainly arguable that under Article 6, as set forth in Re Inglis Ltd., supra, a successful candidate in a competition has rights under the collective agreement to that position. Whether there is a similar “right” to the position when the competition is not governed by Article 6 is the issue presented here.
In ruling that the allegations of cheating were not a valid basis to cancel the competition, I conclude that the GSB cases relied on by the Employer for the proposition that an employer may cancel a competition even after the successful candidates are identified are distinguishable. In OPSEU (Magliocco) and Ministry of Correctional Services, supra, and OPSEU (Felice) and Ministry of Correctional Services, supra, the Employer cancelled a job competition long after sending out the result letters to the applicants. The offer in those cases, however, was conditional upon the Ministry receiving funding for the positions in question. When the funding did not come through, the competition was cancelled. In the instant matter, the offers made were not conditional. The offers were made, and accepted, and a starting date was set.
Finally, I note that there is no allegation – or evidence - that the Employer acted because it was unhappy with the results of the competition or because it wanted to keep the existing employees already acting in the ISS positions for a longer period of time, or for any other improper motive. The evidence is clear that the Ministry took great efforts to ensure a fair and proper competition, and was highly concerned about the allegations of impropriety concerning advanced knowledge of the questions and answers. Its response – to rescind the offers made and cancel the competition – while understandable, came too late in the process to be based on allegations rather than proof of improper activity.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I conclude:
The Ministry improperly withdrew the offers to the successful applicants and cancelled the March 2001 competition based on the allegations of impropriety raised on May 1, 2001. The allegations were a proper basis to delay implementation of the positions, pending investigation, but not to cancel the competition in its entirety.
Exactly what standard applies for the Ministry to rescind the appointments will be addressed in the next phase of this proceeding, should the parties be unable to resolve this matter. Whether individual misconduct must be established, or whether evidence of improper conduct such that the results of the competition are questionable and flawed is sufficient, similar to the standards for competitions generally, or whether some other standard applies will be addressed.
I shall remain seized.
Issued at Toronto this 12th day of September, 2002.