Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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 a response to a management request is not received, a staff member has 90 days from when the response was due to file an application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that when a response is received but after the expiration of that 90-day period, as in this case, the receipt of the response does not reset the clock for filing an application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. With respect to the issue on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s discretion in refusing the Appellant¡¯s request to extend the time for the filing of the application to challenge the separation decision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in the submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its interpretation of Eng (judgment No. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-520) or in finding that no exceptional circumstances existed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly noted that the case was applied in a number of judgments of which the Appellant¡¯s OSLA representative would have been aware, and that it is well settled that ongoing exchanges with the MEU do not re-set the applicable time limits. With respect to the issue of receivability on the challenge of the Appellant¡¯s non-selection for CISS post, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it is trite law at this juncture that in the context of a case such as the present the request for management evaluation is a prerequisite for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to entertain the challenge to the Appellant¡¯s non-selection. With respect to the issue related to the existence of request for management evaluation in respect of the non-selection decision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant had timely sought management evaluation of his non-selection by virtue of the communication sent on his behalf on 14 November 2014, requests which were repeated in his e-mail of 2 December 2014. To that end, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had jurisdiction to entertain the application filed on 6 March 2015 and, thus, erred in holding to the contrary. With respect to the issue of award cost against the Appellant, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the circumstances did not merit an award of costs against the Appellant as the number of filings did not reach the threshold of ¡°manifestly abusing¡± the proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal succeeded in part; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding on the non-receivability of the challenge to the non-selection decision was vacated and the matter was remanded to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for consideration on the merits. The costs order against the Appellant was also vacated. The rest of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment was affirmed.