Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel, sans pr¨¦judice.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que le recours de M. Radu concernait la d¨¦cision administrative du 8 novembre 2021 concernant sa cessation de service pendant un arr¨ºt de maladie certifi¨¦.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a en outre not¨¦ qu'un recours distinct de M. Radu, d'abord devant la Commission de recours et maintenant devant l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, concernait cette m¨ºme d¨¦cision administrative du 8 novembre 2021 sur le fond, ¨¤ savoir la mesure disciplinaire de cessation de service pour la faute all¨¦gu¨¦e ( Cas Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT n¡ã 2023-1804).

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la d¨¦cision attaqu¨¦e de la Commission de recours dans...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal, without prejudice.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr. Radu¡¯s appeal concerned the administrative decision of 8 November 2021 in respect of his separation from service during certified sick leave.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that a separate appeal by Mr. Radu, first before the Appeals Board and now before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, concerned that same administrative decision of 8 November 2021 on its merits, i.e. the disciplinary measure of separation from service for the alleged misconduct (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Case No. 2023-1804).

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the impugned Appeals Board Decision in this case was not...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a observ¨¦ qu¡¯aucune des parties n¡¯avait demand¨¦ si la requ¨ºte d¡¯AAQ ¨¦tait recevable devant le Tribunal. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a n¨¦anmoins estim¨¦ que, s'agissant d'une question de comp¨¦tence, elle ¨¦tait oblig¨¦e de la soulever elle-m¨ºme. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ qu¡¯en vertu de l¡¯article 2(1)(a) du Statut du TDNU, le membre du personnel ¨¦tait tenu d¡¯identifier une d¨¦cision administrative qui serait pr¨¦sum¨¦e non conforme aux conditions d¡¯engagement ou au contrat de travail. En outre, selon une jurisprudence constante, la d¨¦cision administrative doit avoir un effet ¨¤ la fois direct et n¨¦gatif sur l'emploi du...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal a commis une erreur de proc¨¦dure telle qu'elle a affect¨¦ l'issue de l'affaire en ne tenant pas d'audience et en s'appuyant de mani¨¨re significative sur le rapport d'enqu¨ºte de l'OAIS pour corroborer la v¨¦racit¨¦ des ¨¦v¨¦nements all¨¦gu¨¦s par le plaignant, alors qu'il n'y avait pas d'audience. Les t¨¦moins directs de la mauvaise conduite all¨¦gu¨¦e et tous les t¨¦moins sur lesquels se sont appuy¨¦s les enqu¨ºteurs de l'OAIS ont obtenu leurs preuves et informations aupr¨¨s du plaignant. ? ce titre, l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a conclu que leurs ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve ¨¦taient des preuves par ou?...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a examin¨¦ un appel interjet¨¦ par le fonctionnaire.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur de fait en n'ayant pas consid¨¦r¨¦ la cessation de service, mentionn¨¦e dans l'avis de cessation de service, comme le motif de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ; la mention de la retraite n¡¯avait aucune incidence sur la cessation de service du fonctionnaire. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la lettre l'informant de l'expiration de son engagement de dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e ¨¦tait conforme ¨¤ la suppression du poste qu'elle occupait.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que le contr?le judiciaire dans le contexte d'une suspension d...

? titre pr¨¦liminaire, l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ la demande d¡¯audience de M. Qassem. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les questions factuelles et juridiques soulev¨¦es par l'appel avaient ¨¦t¨¦ clairement d¨¦finies par les parties et qu'en outre, une audience orale ne ? contribuerait pas ¨¤ r¨¦gler l'affaire de mani¨¨re rapide et ¨¦quitable ?.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que, puisque l'engagement de dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e de M. Qassem avait ¨¦t¨¦ prolong¨¦ au-del¨¤ du 31 mars 2020, sans effet donn¨¦ ¨¤ la d¨¦cision administrative initiale de ne pas renouveler son engagement au-del¨¤ de cette date, le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant...

As a preliminary matter, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Qassem¡¯s request for an oral hearing. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had been clearly defined by the parties and moreover, an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that since Mr. Qassem¡¯s fixed-term appointment was extended beyond 31 March 2020, with no effect given to the initial administrative decision not to renew his employment beyond this date, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the application was moot since the administrative decision...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in fact when it had not considered separation on retirement, mentioned in the separation notice, to be the reason for the contested decision; the mention of retirement had no import on the staff member¡¯s separation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the letter informing her of the expiry of her fixed-term appointment was in line with the abolition of the post she encumbered.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that judicial review in the context of suspension of action is different from the review conducted by the Tribunal...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of procedure such that it affected the outcome of the case in not holding an oral hearing and relying significantly on the OAIS investigation report to corroborate the truth of the events alleged by the Complainant, when there was no direct witnesses to the alleged misconduct and all the witnesses relied upon by the OAIS investigators obtained their evidence and information from the Complainant. As such, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that their evidence was hearsay evidence and that the prejudice to the Appellant in admitting and relying upon this evidence...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that neither party had raised whether AAQ¡¯s application was receivable before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nonetheless held that because this was a jurisdictional question, it was obliged to raise the issue itself. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that pursuant to Article 2(1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, the staff member was obliged to identify an administrative decision that was alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or contract of employment. Further, pursuant to established case law, the administrative decision must have both a direct and adverse effect on the employment of the...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la r¨¦paration demand¨¦e dans la requ¨ºte concernait une question qui n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ soulev¨¦e auparavant devant l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ou l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, ¨¤ savoir le recouvrement d'un montant d¨¦j¨¤ pay¨¦ ¨¤ titre de d¨¦pense admissible selon une ¨¦chelle mobile.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ qu'il n'y avait rien de flou ou d'ambigu dans le sens ou la port¨¦e du jugement ant¨¦rieur, les termes de l'ordonnance ¨¦tant clairs. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ qu¡¯il n¡¯¨¦tait pas n¨¦cessaire d¡¯interpr¨¦ter le jugement ant¨¦rieur pour en clarifier le sens, et qu¡¯il n¡¯existait pas non plus de doutes raisonnables sur ce qui constituait la d¨¦cision de...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the relief sought in the application concerned an issue not previously raised before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT or the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, being the recovery of an amount already paid as an admissible expense on a sliding scale.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was nothing in the meaning or scope of the prior Judgment that was unclear or ambiguous, the terms of the order were clear. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted there was no need to interpret the prior Judgment to clarify its meaning, nor were there reasonable doubts about what constituted the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s decision or the reasons for it.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that there was also...