Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s language, which was strongly critical of the Appellant, was unwarranted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the decision to discontinue the payment of her SPA was a legitimate exercise of the Administration¡¯s discretion, as the Appellant no longer met the requirements for it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the discontinuation of the SPA was justified in view of the Administration¡¯s obligation and right to correct such an erroneous situation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2019/070 by the Commissioner-General of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not commit any error when it concluded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA had failed to consider the Applicant¡¯s personal and humanitarian reasons in the impugned decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly concluded that relevant matters (personal and humanitarian reasons) had been ignored in the exercise of the Commissioner-General¡¯s discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

The Applicant sought revision of judgment 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-944 pursuant to Article 11(1), which sets out strict and exceptional criteria that must be met. The Applicant alleged he became aware, in January 2020, that the Inspector General¡¯s Office (IGO) of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR had not made a finding on whether the hiring manager¡¯s conduct amounted to misconduct. The Applicant contended that the Respondent had made misleading comments to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, which led the latter to erroneously conclude that the IGO had investigated and determined that no misconduct had occurred. In addition, the Applicant sought leave to submit...

On the Appellant¡¯s claim that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judge was biased, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s specific allegations were not made out and any missteps in the conduct of the hearing did not warrant interference with the result. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that his supervisor harassed him to the extent that his actions were mitigated substantially, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if the Appellant established that there was a dysfunctional relationship between him and his supervisor, this could not have had the effect of mitigating his actions significantly, such were the scale and duration of his misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Nadeau of Order No. 184 and his request that both Order Nos. 184 and 169 be rescinded. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he did not demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in rejecting his request for new documents to be introduced into evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the issue could be raised on appeal against the final judgment on the merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT is competent to review whether certain facts remained unresolved at the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT level and to consider the need for factual determinations based on the whole of the relevant evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-948 by Ms Bezziccheri. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Bezziccheri¡¯s claim that ST/AI/2019/1 was unknown to her and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT at the time the judgment was issued. Noting the three elements that an applicant for revision must establish cumulatively before a final judgment of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT can be revised, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that ST/AI/2019/1 was known to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT when it issued its judgment (as it had been referred to therein) was sufficient in and of itself to fail the cumulative test. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that ST/AI/2019/1 was not determinative of Ms...

A telephone conversation that was suggestive of gender discrimination in the decision-making process and was raised by the Appellant in his application was ignored by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error in the procedure by failing to hold an oral hearing where witnesses could testify about that conversation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the matter back to a different judge of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for the production of further evidence, additional findings of fact, and the issuance of a new judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reason upon which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decided not to rescind the contested decision, i. e. the lapse of time, was insufficient justification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given the grossly negligent illegalities in which the selection process was conducted as found by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, rescission of the contested decision was mandatory and could not be avoided on the basis of the excessive length of time between the filing of the application and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that allowing the decision not to select the Appellant to remain in effect as if it was correct, despite its clear illegality, was not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no express rescission of the impugned decision by the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that monthly renewals pending the outcome of the rebuttal of a performance evaluation did not resolve the complaint of the non-renewal of the fixed-term appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the monthly renewals did not rescind or supersede the impugned decision and the application could not be considered moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its decision, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, and remanded the matter to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for proper...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT exercised its discretion lawfully to consolidate the cases. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the impugned decisions were taken in good faith and on a reasonable basis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was a bona fide reason to restructure and that it was operationally rational not to renew the Limited Duration Contracts at the time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants' argument with regard to their acquired rights being violated was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.