Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal limited to the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in awarding costs against him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the jurisdiction of a tribunal to award costs is narrowly restricted to instances where a party has manifestly abused the proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT gave no reasons for its determination that the Appellant had manifestly abused the proceedings, cited no evidence establishing that his application was frivolous or vexatious, or that he had deliberately delayed the proceedings, or had disobeyed an order of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT or had, in any other way, abused Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the award of costs, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the calling of a witness in good faith and with the reasonable aim to bolster the views of the Administration did not constitute an abuse of process warranting the award of legal costs and granted the appeal on that point. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal of the award of prospective compensation of the monetary equivalent of the Special Post Allowance for an uncertain duration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against the award of compensation for loss of opportunity...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/006. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a motion to seek to leave to postpone consideration of the Appellant¡¯s appeal due to lack of legal representation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the Motion filed by the Appellant was an additional supplemental pleading addressing the merits of his claims. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not shown exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional pleading or good cause to postpone consideration of his appeal and his request was denied. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that there was no implied administrative decision to challenge at the time the Appellant filed his judicial review application and that his application was also not receivable on that basis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no errors of fact or law by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in awarding costs against the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was well-aware of his obligation to comply with Staff Rule 11.2(a), yet he: (a) intentionally failed to seek management...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014/017. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-963 was a final judgment and therefore the Appellant¡¯s case was res judicata, which meant that the Appellant was precluded from raising his claim again. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT made no error in finding the Appellant¡¯s application manifestly inadmissible and dismissing it without referring it to the Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held as unsustainable the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law when it considered his application was an application against judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-363. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal, in which she alleged that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted inappropriately in granting a summary judgment, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in awarding costs against her. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was entirely appropriate after the case management process had been concluded, for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to grant a summary judgment and that there was no legitimate inference that its decision to do so was influenced by any bias or prejudgment on the part of the Presiding Judge. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal on several issues, being the first one whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in determining that the Appellant¡¯s challenge to the separation decision was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant did not file an application within the 90-day calendar period established in Article 8. 1(d)(i)(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. With respect to the issue of whether there is a contradiction between Neault (judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-345) and Gallo (judgment No. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-552), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there is no discrepancy between Neault and Gallo. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the ratio of both judgments is that where...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had made no error in finding that as a General Service staff member at the G-5 level, the Applicant was not eligible to apply for the vacancy advertised in the JO, which was a post in the Professional category at the P-5 level and that, therefore, the disputed decision had no legal consequences affecting him and no effect on his rights and terms of employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in its finding that the Appellant was not claiming a right to be consulted as an individual staff member, but rather, in his capacity as a staff representative. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in fact or in law in finding that the Appellant did not request management evaluation of the disputed decision and that his application was therefore not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Appellant did not have standing to challenge a decision affecting his right to consultation as a staff representative. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact committed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in arriving at its judgment that his application was not receivable regarding the fact that the contested decision had no direct legal consequences...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General challenging the compensation for moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was enough evidence produced that the amount of compensation for moral damages had been paid into the staff member¡¯s bank account. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the payment of the compensation constituted an acceptance of the Secretary-General of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was, therefore, moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the staff member¡¯s claim for costs against the Secretary-General because of abuse of process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal had no merit, it...