Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had correctly determined that the application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had committed errors in law or fact in reaching its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim that he was denied legal representation was not made before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, although it was a circumstance that was known to the Appellant at that time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not permit the issue to be raised for the first time on appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

On the issue of receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in summarily addressing sua sponte the issue of the receivability of the application when the Commissioner-General did not raise that issue in his reply. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s request for review of the contested decision was filed almost a year after he knew of the implied decision and was, therefore, untimely. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contentions against the participation of the Commissioner-General in the proceedings and to file a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that the rejection of the application as not receivable was correct on the basis that the Appellant did not seek decision review within the mandatory time period, which meant that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was precluded in law from considering the merits of his application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not identify how the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment was in any way defective or demonstrated that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in relation to its jurisdiction or committed an error of fact or law or procedure such as would warrant intervention by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant raised the same issues he raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and did not identify how the judgment was in any way defective. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not identify any of the required grounds of appeal and failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and found no error of law or fact in its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing prior to consideration of the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also rejected the Appellant's claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was biased in ordering that the five applications be consolidated into a single judgment. With respect to the appeal itself, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal of the decisions denying disability benefits and finding the non-payment of termination claim not receivable, had no legal basis. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s challenge to the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to render the findings of the medical board moot and not to pay him a disability benefit...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that there was no need for further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not base his appeal on any grounds for appeal in accordance with those established in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s conclusions about the untimely submission for review of the purported administrative decision approving a new workflow, the non-receivability of the challenge against the directive to the staff of the Finance Department not to take instructions from the Appellant, as well as the intermediate nature of the decision to refer...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants failed to specifically identify the errors allegedly committed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and therefore the appeals were defective for that reason but considered the appeals given that the appellants were not legally represented. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any error on a finding of fact of when the Appellants receive notification of the administrative decision did not result in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that whether the administrative decision was the expressed verbal communication of the denial to provide compensation or was implied from the refusal or failure to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no errors in the decision of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the Appellant¡¯s application was irreceivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held the Appellant was notified of the decision not to shortlist him by e-mail of 14 November 2019. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s allegations regarding the abolishment of his post had no legal relevance for the appeal, which dealt only with issues of receivability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal explained that on 21 March 2019, it had become clear to the staff member that the Agency had not shortlisted her for these two posts. This information was confirmed on 21 March 2019 by HR to the staff member. The Tribunal also noted that there were nothing in the communications between the parties indicating that the matter would be reopened or reconsidered. Furthermore, the subsequent email from HR on 8 April 2019 detailing the reasons why she was not selected was not a new administrative decision but rather a...