Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted correctly by conducting a judicial review of the case.

It found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly assessed the credibility of the witnesses who testified before it and correctly relied on the credible testimony of Ms. V, who had no motive to lie, to conclude that it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the former staff member had sexually harassed her by making comments of a sexual nature in May and December 2020.While Ms. V¡¯s testimony alone would have been sufficient in this context, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was corroborated by colleagues who were...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had a medical condition requiring attention which impacted his ability to return to work, and he had consented to the Independent Medical Examination and had not challenged those records before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT nor on appeal.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if ST/AI/2019/1 were applicable to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR staff members or taken as a model of just practice, it would not have rendered the Independent Medical Examination improper.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no basis to overturn the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination that there had been no evidence of bias or conflict of interest in either the medical...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the impugned Orders denying the staff member¡¯s requests for anonymity had been issued less than a month after the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had granted his motion for anonymity in another case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the impugned Orders did not exist in isolation and the interaction of all these proceedings rendered the situation exceptional. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that denying him anonymity for his two applications alone would defeat the purpose of anonymity and, in the unique circumstances of these proceedings, this inconsistency was prejudicial to the integrity of the internal justice system. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings had been based on credible evidence when it determined that the staff member¡¯s son had contracted Covid-19; he had been treated under the supervision of her primary medical care provider; and payment had been made based on invoices from that provider reflecting the care he had provided.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that in light of the testimony of the staff member¡¯s witnesses, including herself and the medical professional who had treated her son, it had not been erroneous for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to conclude that the Administration had failed to establish the medical...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member¡¯s transfer request had been approved by the West Bank Field Office but the Jordan Field Office had subsequently informed that the request could not be accommodated due to a commitment to the roadmap on hiring daily-paid workers in fixed-term posts.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Commissioner-General had demonstrated the efforts made by both Field Offices to process the transfer request and the Agency¡¯s burden to show that the request had been given full and fair consideration was satisfied. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had not discharged the burden of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although the former staff member did not receive the full investigation report until after the disciplinary process was concluded, there was no due process violation because the opportunity to respond letter was detailed, and he received the full investigation report early in the Dispute Tribunal proceedings.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Dispute Tribunal had appropriately heard live testimony from numerous witnesses, all of whom were subject to cross-examination, and had admitted certain hearsay statements using established methods of corroboration. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Dispute...

In the present case, according to the Applicant¡¯s own submissions, he was not in a situation of ¡°an absolute impossibility¡± of filing a timely waiver as per Karki. Instead, while apparently being aware of expiry of the deadline, he continued to work intensely on preparing the application, and rather than giving priority to filing it in time, he instead wanted it ¡°to be perfect¡±. When then filing the application, the Applicant, however, made no reference to it being filed too late or indicating that he requested a waiver of the 90-day deadline under art. 8.3 of the Statute. He only requested a...

The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae as (1) the record indicates that the Applicant did not submit a request for request for management evaluation to the Management Advice and Evaluation Section as required under staff rule 11.2; and (2) the contested decision had no direct effect on the Applicant, no external legal effect, nor any adverse impact on the Applicant¡¯s contractual employment rights.

The Court found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances or factors beyond his control that prevented him from filing a timely application for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement (see, e.g., Gelsei 2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1035, paras. 19-24).

In any event, the Trtibunal considered that a period of six and a half years to request enforcement was excessive.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to produce consolidated lists of agreed and disputed facts to enable it understand the factual issues at stake.

The Tribunal also ordered the parties to indicate what additional documentaton they requested to be disclosed, and the identities of any witnesses they wished to call, specifying what disputed facts the witnesses would testify about.