Claimant's Grievance Rejected for Being Untimely

Date: 20260514 File : 566- 33- 46892 Citation: 2026 FPSLREB 58 Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act Before a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board [NAME] CANADA AGENCY Employer Indexed as [NAME] v. Parks Canada Agency In the matter of an individual grievance referred to adjudication Before: [NAME], a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board For [NAME]: [NAME], representative For the Employer: [NAME] \y 657 Decided on the basis of written submissions, filed April 6, 2023, June 26, July 12, September 16 and 21, and October 4 and 11, 2024, April 14, November 28, and December 10, 2025, and January 27, 2026. (FPSLREB Translation)

REASONS FOR

DECISION (FPSLREB TRANSLATION)

I. Introduction [ 1 ] This decision is about the Parks Canada Agency’s (“the employer”) preliminary objection in which it requested that the referral to adjudication of [NAME]’s (“[NAME] ”) grievance be denied because it is untimely. [ 2 ] In addition, this decision addresses a recusal request that [NAME] made. [ 3 ] For the reasons that follow, [NAME]’s recusal request is dismissed, and the employer’s preliminary objection is allowed.

II. Summary of the relevant facts [ 4 ] [NAME] filed the grievance that is the subject of this decision at the first level on December 7, 2021. It challenges the Policy on COVID-19 Vaccination for the Parks Canada Agency (“the Vaccination Policy”). As corrective action, the grievance requests that the employer waive the Vaccination Policy’s application, not place [NAME] on leave without pay, and pay her any lost wages. [ 5 ] According to [NAME], on February 3, 2022, she emailed the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (“the Board”), referring her grievance to adjudication under s. 209(1)(b) of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, s. 2; “the Act ”) because her employer did not respond to her grievance. [ 6 ] The Board has no record of receiving that email , and [NAME] does not allege that she received confirmation of its receipt. [ 7 ] On March 3, 2022, [NAME] received an email from the employer, informing her that her grievance would be forwarded directly to the final level of the grievance process and requesting that she hold it in abeyance until the employer could provide her with tentative dates for her grievance hearing. [ 8 ] On March 9, 2022, [NAME] replied to the employer, informing it that she had already referred her grievance to adjudication, as the time limit for responding to it expired on January 26, 2022. She informed it that she agreed to hold her grievance in abeyance with the Board, for it to respond to her grievance. [ 9 ] According to [NAME], on March 15, 2022, she emailed the Board a second time, this time requesting that her grievance be placed in abeyance. [ 10 ] The Board has no record of receiving that email , and [NAME] does not allege that she received confirmation of its receipt. [ 11 ] On March 6, 2023, one year later, [NAME] electronically sent the Board a referral request for the same grievance. The referral includes a duly signed Form 21, dated March 6, 2023, and states the following: [Translation] Madam, Sir, On March 15, 2022, I asked you to place in abeyance the adjudication request that I sent you on February 3, 2022. I wanted to give [NAME] more time to respond. However, since I received its response to my grievance at the final level, I now would like it taken out of abeyance. I am sending you a new, updated version of my notice of reference to adjudication (Form 21), which includes two changes to the February 3, 2022, version: 1) the date of the employer’s final-level response; 2) the absence of an authorized representative, since [NAME] no longer represents me. … [ 12 ] The Form 21 indicates that the employer rendered its decision at the final level of the grievance process on March 23, 2022. [ 13 ] A receipt acknowledgement from the Board was sent to the parties on March 9, 2023. [ 14 ] Concurrent with her request before the Board, [NAME] is part of a group of applicants (“the applicants”) who made a judicial review application before the Federal Court challenging the Vaccination Policy and the employer’s actions under it. [ 15 ] [NAME] stated that after March 12, 2023, she became aware of a motion for a stay of proceedings that her counsel filed with the Federal Court on September 29, 2022. [ 16 ] In response to that motion, the Federal Court issued a decision on January 26, 2023, dismissing the application. That decision states the following about the applicants: [redacted] … [they] chose to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction in judicial review of the decision at the final level of the grievance process without referring the decision to adjudication and without raising before this Court that being placed on leave without pay constituted a disciplinary measure in their case. … … [ 17 ] [NAME] said that she wrote to the Federal Court on March 13, 2023, to inform it that she had referred her grievance to adjudication on February 3, 2022, and to request a stay of her judicial review application. [ADDRESS] agreed to hold her case in abeyance, pending the Board’s final decision on the request to refer her grievance to adjudication. [ 18 ] On March 17, 2023, [NAME] informed the Board that he was now representing [NAME] as well as 55 other grievors with similar files. [ 19 ] On April 6, 2023, the employer raised two preliminary objections. The first was that the grievance’s referral to the Board was untimely because it was dated March 6, 2023, while the grievance was dated December 7, 2021. The second was that the grievance dealt with an administrative decision that the employer made and over which the Board did not have jurisdiction. [NAME] was copied. [ 20 ] On April 22, 2024, [NAME] wrote to the Board and requested a copy of the email that the Board sent in February or March 2022 to her then-representative, [NAME], confirming that her grievance had been referred to adjudication. [ 21 ] On May 21, 2024, the Board informed the parties that its registry and its information technology services had searched and that they had not been able to find the email or a referral of the grievance to adjudication in 2022. It asked [NAME] to file her response to the employer’s objection related to the time limit by June 14, 2024. [ 22 ] On May 21, 2024, [NAME] mistakenly emailed the Board but believed that he was addressing [NAME]. On May 22, 2024, the Board informed him of his error. [ 23 ] On June 21, 2024, [NAME] wrote this to the Board: [Translation] … Please forward this email and the attached document to the Board member in charge of file 566-33-46892. This document includes an exchange of emails that we had with the Board today. It shows that the Board has still not resolved its technical difficulties with its electronic communication systems. As happened on February 3, 2022, in the case of the reference to adjudication of employee [NAME]’s grievance, the Board today claimed that it did not receive an email that we sent it on June 19, 2024. We are demonstrating to it in the attached email exchange that we did indeed send the email and that we even received an automatic acknowledgement of receipt from the Board. We ask the Board to take the attached document into account when handling [NAME]’s file. Please accept our regards. … [ 24 ] The document attached to the email was about an email exchange between [NAME] and the Board in another case. [ 25 ] At the bottom of the page, the June 21, 2024, email also included what appears to be an email dated June 13, 2024, which stated the following: [Translation] … [NAME] did indeed refer her grievance to adjudication on February 3, 2022, as evidenced by the attached email and form , in accordance with clause 16.06(c) of the collective agreement between the Parks Canada Agency and the Public Service Alliance of Canada and in accordance with section 90(2) of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Regulations. [NAME] used the correct address, which was [EMAIL]. [NAME] filed the attached grievance on December 7, 2021, and the time limit for the employer to respond expired 30 working days later, on January 21, 2022. Therefore, [NAME] was fully entitled to refer her grievance to adjudication on February 3, 2022. The employer never disputed the fact that it had to respond directly at the final level, given [NAME]’s position, and it did so, but with a delay of more than 2 months, or 43 working days. [NAME] at the time, [NAME], confirmed to us that he received [NAME]’s reference to adjudication email dated February 3, 2022. Therefore, it seems that the Board is the only one to have lost track of this email. The Board did not send an acknowledgement of receipt, which [NAME] could not have known because the acknowledgement email was to be sent to her representative. Time and time again, we have observed the Board’s difficulties sending and receiving emails, operating its electronic document portal, issuing invitations to conferences and hearings, complying with the Official Languages Act , and producing audio recordings of hearings. The fact that the Board has misplaced [NAME]’s email seems to us to be one of those unfortunate difficulties. Therefore, the employer’s preliminary objection, dated April 6, 2023, is null and void , as it does not relate to the actual reference to adjudication, which took place on February 3, 2022, and not on March 9, 2023 , the date on which [NAME] referred the Form 21 because her new representative, appointed a few days earlier, informed her that when searching through the files that [NAME] sent, he did not find a receipt acknowledgement from the Board of her reference to adjudication on February 3, 2022 . Therefore, we urge the Board to correct its mistake by way of the following:

1) Send to [NAME] ( … @[NAME].com), her representative, and the employer a receipt acknowledgement and the initial documents for the reference to adjudication of February 3, 2022;

2) Inform the employer that its preliminary objection of April 6, 2023, is not admissible, as it arose from an error and does not relate to a valid reference to adjudication;

3) Reject any objection by the employer about timeliness or a failure to comply with the internal grievance process, as [NAME] complied with the timelines and the internal grievance process. … [Emphasis added] [ 26 ] The message states that the following three exhibits are attached, but no exhibits are attached: [Translation] …

… [ 27 ] On July 11, 2024, the Board informed [NAME] that it had no record of receiving the June 13, 2024, email reproduced earlier. It asked her representative to forward the original and full version of his June 13, 2024, email (including attachments) by July 17, 2024. It also asked the employer to confirm by the same date whether it received the June 13, 2024, email. [ 28 ] On July 12, 2024, [NAME] sent what he identified as a copy of the June 13, 2024, email to the Board and the employer that states the following: [Translation] … Start of forwarded message: From: [NAME] Subject: Rep: FPSLREB file 566-33-46892, [NAME] & Parks Canada Agency Date: June 13, 2024 at 9:01:12 a.m. EDT To: [NAME] Director Directeur Cc: “ [EMAIL] ” , “ [EMAIL] ” , “ [EMAIL] ” … [Emphasis added] [ 29 ] The Board has no record of receiving the June 13, 2024, email. The employer also confirmed that it did not receive it. [ 30 ] The July 12, 2024, message was copied on the duly signed Form 21 dated February 3, 2022. He also attached the following document, reproduced in its entirety, which he identified as the February 3, 2022, email that referred the grievance : [Translation] From: [NAME] Date: On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 11:35 Subject: Fwd: Notice of reference to adjudication To: [EMAIL]

Cc: … @gmail.com Madam, Sir, Please find attached a notice of reference to adjudication and the related individual grievance. I hope that everything is in order. Yours sincerely, [NAME] … Sent with [NAME]. I_Hébert_Notice of reference…21.pdf C-19_vax_policy_grie…T_2.pdf [ 31 ] The email address identified after “From:” was [NAME]’s, and the one after “Cc:” was that of her representative at that time. [ 32 ] The July 12, 2024, message also states the following: [Translation] … … we have recently been able to make certain observations that leave very little doubt as to the involvement of external actors in the transmission problems of emails that displease promoters of experimental gene treatment injections. However, we have been able to overcome these problems by taking several measures. … [ 33 ] On August 13, 2024, [NAME] wrote to the Board by email and reiterated that he believed that his communication difficulties were related to external actors who had targeted those challenging the Vaccination Policy. He said that he considered them criminal acts that should be brought to the attention of the competent authorities and encouraged the Board to pursue an investigation into the matter. [ 34 ] A case management conference was held on September 5, 2024, by the Board’s vice-chairperson assigned to manage the file, who informed the parties that the Board did not intend to include external authorities, as [NAME] suggested. [ 35 ] On September 16, 2024, [NAME] emailed the Board, advising it that an automatic-reply email from it was intercepted by the spam filter of another employee whom he was also representing. He suggested that it was another example of an email communication problem between the grievors, their representative, and the Board with respect to grievances against vaccination policies. He based his opinion on the fact that this [NAME] had already received emails from the Board and that her spam filter had intercepted none of them. He added that he believed that malicious people are capable of manipulating emails’ destinations so that spam filters intercept them. He deplored the Board’s refusal to notify the competent authorities, so they could investigate. [ 36 ] On September 21, 2024, [NAME] emailed the Board [NAME]’s response to the employer’s preliminary objection that the grievance was untimely (these arguments are reproduced in the section summarizing the parties’ arguments later in this decision). He said that he attached three emails to the communication that proved that the reference to adjudication indeed took place on February 3, 2022. [ 37 ] The September 21, 2024, email was copied on a document identified as the February 3 and March 15, 2022, emails that is reproduced in its entirety as follows: [Translation] Re: Notice of reference of adjudication From: … @[NAME].com To [EMAIL] Date: Tuesday, March 15th, 2022 at 12:36 PM Hello, Last February 3, I sent you a notice of reference to adjudication for a grievance against the Vaccination Policy that I submitted to [NAME] in December 2021. I still have not received an acknowledgement from you, so I do not have a tracking number. When I sent my notice of reference to adjudication, [NAME] also had not responded to my grievance, so I did not have a grievance number to provide you with. I ask you today to pause the processing of my adjudication request because [NAME] finally responded to me. Therefore, I decided to give it an additional few weeks to render its final-level decision. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Regards, [NAME] … Sent with [NAME] secure email. ------- Original Message ------- On Thursday, February 3rd, 2022 at 11:35 AM, [NAME] wrote: Madam, Sir, Please find attached a notice of reference to adjudication and the related individual grievance. I hope that everything is in order. Yours sincerely, [NAME] … Sent with [NAME]. [ 38 ] In addition, in the September 21, 2024, email, [NAME] expressed strong disapproval of the Vice-Chairperson’s behaviour of refusing to contact the appropriate authorities about the suspicions of criminal activity. He said that the refusal was not likely to reassure them about the impartiality that she had to present, including at the file-management stage. He said that he also questioned the Board chairperson’s impartiality because, according to him, she left the many grievance files related to vaccination policies to her two vice-chairpersons. [ 39 ] On October 4, 2024, the employer emailed the Board its reply to [NAME]’s response (these arguments are reproduced in the section summarizing the parties’ arguments later in this decision). In its arguments, the employer indicated that it was made aware of the grievance’s reference on March 6, 2023. [ 40 ] On October 9, 2024, [NAME] emailed the Board. He informed it that [NAME] did not receive the March 6, 2023, email and asked for a copy of it. [ 41 ] On October 11, 2024, the Board emailed the parties copies of both emails dated March 6, 2023. They indicate that they were sent to [NAME]’s Hotmail address. The address of those emails is the same one that [NAME] used on March 3, 2023, when she sent the Board the copy of the Form 21 dated March 3, 2023. [ 42 ] That same day, [NAME] sent the Board [NAME]’s reply to the employer’s preliminary objection that the grievance was out of time. That reply included an affidavit from [NAME] on the facts indicated earlier, in support of her position. She also sent directly to the Board and the employer what she identified as the originals of her emails sent to the Board on February 3 and March 15, 2022. The February 3, 2022, email is identical to the one sent on September 21, 2024. The March 15, 2022, email differs in the introductory part, as follows: [Translation] … ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: [NAME] Date: On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 12:36 Subject: Fwd: Re: Notice of reference to adjudication To: [EMAIL]

Cc: Hello, … Sent with [NAME] secure email. ------- Original Message ------- On Thursday, February 3rd, 2022 at 11:35 AM, [NAME] wrote: … Sent with [NAME]. [ 43 ] On April 10, 2025, the parties were informed that the file had been assigned to me and that I intended to make a decision on the preliminary objection. [ 44 ] That same day, [NAME] requested that I recuse myself. The request was made for the following reasons: · Before becoming a Board member, I was the general counsel for the Canadian Association of Professional Employees ([NAME]). · I held that position when the [NAME]’s vaccination policy and similar policies at several federal agencies, including the Parks Canada Agency, were adopted. · [NAME] alleged that I was one of the key people behind that policy’s implementation. No evidence was submitted to support that allegation. · [NAME] alleged that I recommended to [NAME] to not challenge that policy. No evidence was submitted to support that allegation. [ 45 ] On May 1, 2025, the parties were advised that I was seized only of the employer’s preliminary objection. [NAME] was asked to confirm whether that clarification would affect her recusal request. [ 46 ] [NAME] replied the next day that she was withdrawing her recusal request but strictly for the decision that I was about to make on the employer’s preliminary objection. [ 47 ] On November 25, 2025, the Board asked [NAME] to clarify whether she intended to request an extension of time to file her grievance, as an alternative argument. The email explained that the employer had prepared a response to that effect but that [NAME] did not technically make the request herself. [ 48 ] On November 28, 2025, [NAME] replied that she did not intend to apply for an extension of time but to make a new recusal request. [ 49 ] On January 27, 2026, [NAME] clarified the reasons for the second request. These were the reasons: · She submitted that the Board’s November 25, 2025, email suggested that it was uncertain whether I would find in her favour on the preliminary objection. · She alleged that I intended to add one more application to the file, to further obscure it and to reduce her file’s chances of success. · She indicated that again, she relied on the reasons mentioned in her first recusal request.

III. Summary of the arguments A. For [NAME] [ 50 ] According to [NAME], the preliminary objection is without merit because her grievance was referred on February 3, 2022, which was within the applicable deadline. She submits that it is not up to the parties to debate whether there was an error. It is a matter of file management that rests with the Board. It is up to the Board to make factual findings and correct the error. [ 51 ] With respect to her recusal request, [NAME] submits that because her grievance challenges the legality of the Vaccination Policy, there is a clear conflict of interest. According to her, the reasons that she submitted clearly demonstrate a bias in favour of the employer. B. For the employer [ 52 ] According to the employer, the reference to adjudication was not submitted within the prescribed time limit set out in s. 90 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Regulations (SOR/2005-79; “the Regulations ”). It submits that [NAME] has the onus to prove what she alleges; either the Board made an error, or there was undue interference with her communications with the Board. It believes that her arguments remain allegations that are without merit and that are neither logical nor convincing. [ 53 ] The employer finds it troubling that the copies of [NAME]’s 2022 emails did not surface until April 2024, even though it raised its objection in April 2023. It noted that it is impossible to verify the emails’ authenticity because they were provided in PDF format. Also, on June 21, 2024, in an email to the Board, [NAME] indicated that her counsel at the time received a copy of the alleged reference to adjudication in February 2022, but no evidence of that communication was produced. [ 54 ] The employer believes that the explanation for the delay referring the grievance in question to adjudication is that [NAME] would have preferred instead to apply for a judicial review of the employer’s decision on her grievance. This decision was made within the deadlines relative to this procedure. The employer denied her grievance on March 23, 2022. It finds it extremely curious that [NAME] waited almost a year before informing the Board of that response. [ 55 ] The employer notes that s. 9(c) of the Regulations provides that if a document is sent by electronic mail, it is considered to have been received by the Board on the day on which it is sent. However, for the reasons outlined earlier, the employer believes that [NAME] did not prove that she sent the February 3 and March 15, 2022, emails on the alleged date, and the fact that they did not surface until 2024 supports a serious doubt as to whether they were sent. [ 56 ] The employer also shared its arguments about an extension-of-time request. I have not reproduced them because [NAME] specifically confirmed that she did not wish to make such a request as an alternative argument. [ 57 ] As for the recusal request, the employer submitted that Board members are presumed to act with impartiality (see [NAME] v. [NAME] (Department of National Defence) , 2025 FPSLREB 50 at para. 28; [NAME] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2019 FCA 64 at paras. 8 and 9; and [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2013 PSLRB 61 at paras. 10 and 11). [NAME] presented no evidence to rebut that presumption. [ 58 ] The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act (S.C. 2013, c. 40, s. 365) provides this at s. 6(4): Non-representative Board Impartialité 6(4) Despite being recommended by the employer or the bargaining agents, a member does not represent either the employer or the employees and must act impartially in the exercise of their powers and the performance of their duties and functions. 6(4) Malgré son éventuelle nomination sur recommandation de l’employeur ou des agents négociateurs, le commissaire ne représente ni l’employeur ni les employés et est tenu d’agir avec impartialité dans l’exercice de ses attributions. [ 59 ] Mere previous employment is not sufficient to demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of a Board member. There must be a causal link between previous employment and alleged bias, but [NAME] did not argue that (see [NAME] , at paras. 10 and 11). [ 60 ] [NAME] withdrew her first recusal request. The second recusal request makes accusations, but [NAME] provides no evidence in relation to them. [ 61 ] [NAME] must demonstrate beyond mere suspicion that a reasonable and well-informed person could reasonably be expected to believe that the Board member would be biased when dealing with this objection and that she would not make a fair decision. That was not done. [ 62 ] The employer believes that a reasonable and well-informed person who examines all the facts of the case realistically and practically would find that there is no reasonable apprehension of bias that would justify a recusal.

IV. Analysis and reasons A. Recusal request [ 63 ] According to the Supreme Court of Canada, in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board , [1978] 1 SCR 369, an apprehension of bias must be reasonable. The determination is made by asking the following question (at page 386 of the decision): … … the test to apply in this case … is what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically … conclude. Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the decision maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly. … [ 64 ] In Adams v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) (1989), 42 B.C.L.R. (2nd) 228 (B.C.C.A.), the [ADDRESS] of Appeal also explained the question of the nature of the evidence necessary to demonstrate the existence of an appearance of bias, as follows: … [13] … An accusation of that nature … ought not to be made unless supported by sufficient evidence to demonstrate that, to a reasonable person, there is a sound basis for apprehending that the person against whom it is made will not bring an impartial mind to bear upon the cause … suspicion is not enough. … … [ 65 ] The Board has applied those principles several times when ruling on recusal requests (see [NAME] ; [NAME] ; [NAME] v. Deputy Head (Department of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FPSLREB 30 at para. 78; and [NAME] v. Deputy Head (Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations) , 2023 FPSLREB 120 at para. 19). [ 66 ] When those principles are applied to this case, [NAME]’s concerns are based on three main points. [ 67 ] The first point is about the position that I held before joining the Board. According to [NAME], the role would have made me one of the key people involved in implementing the employer’s policy. She also believes that in that role, I would have recommended to the [NAME] to not challenge the policy. [ 68 ] However, for a recusal request to be granted, a party’s concerns must go beyond the realm of imagination and reside in reality. [ 69 ] In this case, no evidence was submitted to support those allegations. Those statements are based entirely on speculation. As noted in the case law, suspicion is not enough. However, if there is a way to reassure [NAME], I can confirm that her speculations are completely without merit. [ 70 ] But it is true that I was once [NAME]’s general counsel and that I held that position when the employer implemented the Vaccination Policy. [ 71 ] However, I do not think that a reasonable and well-informed person called on to judge my involvement in this matter (involving a preliminary objection with respect to a missed deadline) would find a reasonable apprehension of bias on my part simply because I held the general counsel position — a union position — when the employer implemented its policy. [ 72 ] The second and third points on which [NAME]’s request is based are related to the Board’s November 25, 2025, email asking her to clarify whether she intended to request an extension of time as an alternative argument, for that is the interpretation that the employer seemed to make. [ 73 ] According to [NAME], the request suggested that it was uncertain whether I would find in her favour on the preliminary objection. She also claims that I intended to add one more request to the file, to further obscure it and to reduce her file’s chances of success. [ 74 ] Once again, I am satisfied that a reasonable and well-informed person called on to judge my involvement in this case would in no way find that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias. [ 75 ] Objectively, the Board’s request could benefit only [NAME] in that it would have given her an additional argument to move her case forward. [ 76 ] For those reasons, [NAME]’s recusal request is dismissed. B. The employer’s preliminary objection [ 77 ] Section 9 of the Regulations provides the following: 9 A document is considered to have been received by the Board, 9 Tout document est présumé avoir été reçu par la Commission : … […] (c) if the document is sent by electronic mail, fax transmission or other electronic means, on the day on which it is sent …. c) s’il a été transmis par courrier électronique, télécopieur ou tout autre moyen électronique, à la date de son envoi; … […] [ 78 ] The decision on the preliminary objection is based on the determination of a single fact, which is the date on which [NAME] referred her grievance to the Board. If I find that the grievance was referred on February 3, 2022, it is admissible. However, if I find that it was referred on March 6, 2023, it is inadmissible, and I must allow the employer’s objection and deny the grievance. [ 79 ] For the reasons that follow, I find that the grievance is inadmissible. [ 80 ] According to [NAME], on February 3, 2022, she email the Board to refer her grievance to adjudication under s. 209(1)(b) of the Act . The Board has no record of receiving that email . The employer, for its part, submitted that the grievance was sent to the Board only on March 6, 2023. [ 81 ] Therefore, this case rests entirely on the evidence that was provided and on the credibility of [NAME]’s or her representative’s statements. [ 82 ] After carefully reviewing all the presented evidence, I find that it is unreliable and that it does not support [NAME]’s version of the facts, which is that she referred her grievance to adjudication on February 3, 2022. [ 83 ] In effect, I identified numerous irregularities in the emails that [NAME] and her representative allege that they sent to the Board on February 3 and March 15, 2022. The versions provided to the Board are different. [ 84 ] The alleged copy of the February 3, 2022, email sent to the Board on July 12, 2024, reads as follows: “Date: On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 11:35”. I note that that format is not usually used because a message in English usually shows whether it is 11:35 a.m. or p.m. The email also refers to attachments. [ 85 ] Conversely, the alleged copy of the February 3, 2022, email sent to the Board on September 21, 2024, is different from the first. This time, it specifies that it is 11:35 a.m. but does not refer to any attachments. [ 86 ] In addition, the alleged copy of the March 15, 2022, email sent to the Board on September 21, 2024, states that it was sent as follows: “To …@[NAME].gc.ca”. I note once again that that format is not usually used because the colon after the word “To” is missing, despite the fact that that punctuation appears after the words “Re:”, “From:” and “Date:”. [ 87 ] The alleged copies of the February 3, 2022, email also include the following at the end: “Sent with [NAME]”. Yet, the alleged copy of the March 15, 2022, email includes the following at the end: “Sent with [NAME] secure email”. Again, the versions are different. In the first message, the words “Secure Email” start with capital letters, while in the second, they are only in lowercase (“secure email”). Although they are two different messages, nevertheless, it is difficult to accept as credible that a text that a system automatically generates could have such a difference, especially in such a short time. [ 88 ] Lastly, as raised by the employer, the format in which the emails were submitted does not make it possible to verify their authenticity. [ 89 ] The formats of and inconsistencies in the emails, combined with the fact that the Board has no record of receiving them, lead me to give little weight to this evidence, which [NAME] submitted. [ 90 ] In addition to that determination, [NAME]’s reason for referring her grievance to the Board twice is also not compelling. [ 91 ] When I assessed the parties’ credibility, I relied on the following oft-quoted approach in [NAME] v. [NAME] , 1951 CanLII 252 (BC CA) at page 357, to assess the credibility of the evidence: … The credibility of interested witnesses, particularly in cases of conflict of evidence, cannot be gauged solely by the test of whether the personal demeanour of the particular witness carried conviction of the truth. The test must reasonably subject his story to an examination of its consistency with the probabilities that surround the currently existing conditions. In short, the real test of the truth of the story of a witness in such a case must be its harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions . … … [Emphasis added] [ 92 ] [NAME] claims that she asked the Board to lift the abeyance of her file on March 6, 2023, because the employer responded to her grievance at the final level of the grievance process. However, it responded to her grievance on March 23, 2022, which was a year before that. She also claims not to have become aware until March 12, 2023 (three days after her grievance’s reference), of the Federal Court’s decision dismissing the motion for a stay of proceedings issued on January 26, 2023. I am reminded that that decision stated that [NAME] had not referred her grievance to the Board. [ 93 ] As suggested in [NAME] , I must subject [NAME]’s narrative of the facts to a reasonable test, to ensure that it is consistent with the probabilities affecting the existing circumstances. [ 94 ] Given the inconsistencies with respect to the alleged February and March 2022 emails, I find that a practical and well-informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in the circumstances that it is more likely than not that the alleged February 3 and March 15, 2022, emails were not sent to the Board. It seems more likely than not that the real reason for the reference of her grievance on March 6, 2023, is that she discovered through the Federal Court’s decision that her counsel at that time had not forwarded her grievance to the Board. That finding is consistent with his request to the Board in April 2023 to obtain a copy of the communications between the Board and her counsel in February and March 2022. [ 95 ] For those reasons, I find that [NAME]’s grievance was not referred to the Board on February 3, 2022. [ 96 ] As the employer mentioned, s. 9(c) of the Regulations provides that if a document is emailed, it is considered to have been received by the Board on the day on which it was sent. However, for the reasons outlined earlier, [NAME] did not prove that she sent the email dated February 3, 2022. Therefore, the March 6, 2023, reference is out of time. [ 97 ] [NAME] did not request an extension of time to file her grievance. [ 98 ] Therefore, I must deny [NAME]’s grievance because it is out of time. [ 99 ] For all of the above reasons, I make the following order: (The Order appears on the next page)

V. Order [ 100 ] [NAME]’s recusal request is dismissed. [ 101 ] The employer’s timeliness objection is allowed. [ 102 ] The grievance bearing Board file no. 566-33-46892 is denied. May 14, 2026. [NAME], a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board