Non-advertised Appointment Process Found Unfair in Federal Public Sector

Date: 20260130 File : 771-02-49956 Citation: 2026 FPSLREB 9 Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and Public Service Employment Act Before a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board BETWEEN Mélanie [NAME] Complainant and [NAME] ([NAME] ) Respondent Indexed as [NAME] v. [NAME] ( [NAME]) In the matter of a complaint of abuse of authority under ss. 77(1)(a) and (b) of the Public Service Employment Act Before: [NAME], a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board For the Complainant: [NAME], Union of Safety and Justice Employees For the Respondent : [redacted] For the Public Service Commission: [NAME], senior analyst ADVANCE \y 657 Heard via videoconference, June 16, 2025. (FPSLREB Translation)

REASONS FOR

DECISION (FPSLREB TRANSLATION) Introduction [ 1 ] This decision highlights the particular risk associated with non-advertised appointment processes when the subdelegated manager signs an assessment written by others without having personal knowledge of the performance or the competencies of the person being assessed. The manager must then review the assessment and verify that it demonstrates merit and ensure that it is not tainted by abuse of authority on the part of its author, notably through personal favouritism or discrimination. Failing to do so exposes the manager to a finding of abuse of authority. [ 2 ] The complainant, Mélanie [NAME], challenges the indeterminate appointment of [NAME] (“the appointee”) to the position of Regional Officer, Data Quality and Training of the Offender Management System (OMS), at the AS-05 group and level. She alleges that the appointee did not meet all the required qualifications and that there was no urgency justifying to proceed with a non-advertised process. According to her, a non-advertised process was chosen out of favouritism, and it prevented other candidates from demonstrating their qualifications. [ 3 ] In her complaint made on June 5, 2024, to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (“the Board”), the complainant alleges that the respondent, the [NAME] head of the [NAME] ([NAME]), abused its authority under ss. 77(1)(a) and (b) of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12 and 13; PSEA ). [ 4 ] The respondent denies abusing its authority by choosing a non-advertised process or in assessing the appointee. It argues that the appointee meets all the essential qualifications for the position, which requires extensive experience and in-depth knowledge of the OMS and its control tools. Furthermore, to support employment-equity objectives, the subdelegated manager decided to proceed with a non-advertised appointment based on that organizational need. [ 5 ] To decide this complaint, I must determine whether the respondent abused its authority by using a non-advertised process, by incorrectly assessing the appointee, and by displaying personal favouritism in the appointment process. [ 6 ] For the following reasons, I conclude that the respondent abused its authority by choosing a non-advertised process. I also find that it abused its authority by making an appointment that was not based on merit, as the appointee did not meet the merit criteria. However, the complainant did not present any evidence of personal favouritism at the hearing; she withdrew that allegation. Background [ 7 ] In September 2010, [NAME] holds the position of OMS Specialist (AS-01) at the Federal Training Centre on an acting basis, then indeterminately starting in April 2011. In September 2019, she changes positions and institutions and moves to an administrative officer (AS-01) position at the Regional Reception Centre, Special Handling Unit. [ 8 ] In October 2019, the complainant occupies the position of Facilities Management Assistant, Eastern Quebec. On July 24, 2020, the acting regional OMS manager, publishes a notice of interest for the position of Regional Officer, [NAME] (AS-05). On July 31, 2020, the complainant submits her application in response to the notice of interest. Then, in November 2020, she begins an acting appointment as an OMS specialist (AS-01) at the Federal Training Centre. [ 9 ] On May 3, 2021, [NAME] returns to the Federal Training Centre in an acting position as a regional officer, [NAME] (AS-05). On September 2, 2021, the appointment is extended until May 2, 2023. [ 10 ] On August 15, 2022, the complainant is appointed as an acting regional project officer (AS-02) at the Federal Training Centre. On December 14, 2022, the appointment is extended until March 31, 2023. Then, the complainant is appointed on an acting basis in various positions where she gains experience supervising staff and advances through the ranks. On April 1, 2023, she is appointed on an acting basis as the chief, support and training, OMS (AS-03), until January 14, 2024. [ 11 ] During the OMS team’s monthly meetings, it is mentioned that a staffing process will take place for an AS-05 position, and the complainant expects to be able to apply for it. [ 12 ] On May 2, 2023, [NAME]’s AS-05 acting appointment is extended until May 3, 2024. On May 30, 2023, the complainant is appointed for an indeterminate period to the OMS specialist (AS-01) position, but she does not occupy it and continues on an acting basis in the chief, OMS support and training (AS-03), position. [ 13 ] On June 12, 2023, [NAME] is appointed for an indeterminate period to the position of Regional OMS Project Officer (AS-02). However, she does not occupy it and continues to act as the regional officer, [NAME] (AS-05), position. [ 14 ] During the summer of 2023, the complainant occupies the AS-05 position on an acting basis during a vacation period of more than three weeks. Then, in January 2024, she is appointed on an acting basis as chief, administrative services (AS-04), until October 2024. [ 15 ] On May 3, 2024, [NAME]’s acting appointment is extended until May 23, 2024. Then, on May 24, 2024, [NAME] is appointed indeterminately to that position through a non-advertised process. [ 16 ] On June 5, 2024, the complainant makes a complaint against this indeterminate appointment by a non-advertised process. She explains that she repeatedly expressed her interest in the position and that she worked to meet the bilingualism requirement at the BBB level, which is required to occupy that position. Analysis [ 17 ] Issue 1: Is a manager required to comply with certain rules when choosing to proceed with a non-advertised appointment? [ 18 ] The complainant submits that advertised hiring processes allow for a fair selection among candidates of the right person for an indeterminate appointment. In her view, the respondent systematically sets aside advertised processes preferring instead to target a specific individual and appoint them through non-advertised processes. [ 19 ] The respondent argues that a manager, at their discretion, may use an advertised or a non-advertised appointment process under s. 33 of the PSEA . Employees do not have a guaranteed right of access to all employment opportunities. The choice to proceed with a non-advertised process is not in and of itself an abuse of authority under s. 77(1)(b) of the PSEA ; see [NAME] v. Commissioner of the [NAME] , 2011 PSST 26 at para. 18; [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2011 PSST 6; and [NAME] v. [NAME] of the Canada Border Services Agency , 2017 PSLREB 22 at para. 54. [ 20 ] The PSEA governs appointments, and its preamble is an integral part of it. The preamble helps us understand the legislator’s objective, as it states that the public service must reflect fair and transparent employment practices and ensure respect for employees. It also specifies that managers must exercise their delegated authority within a framework that requires accountability; see [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2009 PSST 35. [ 21 ] Section 33 of the PSEA draws no distinction between an advertised and a non-advertised process, each of which can serve as the basis for a valid appointment. However , when they choose a non-advertised process, managers are required to comply to the fairness and transparency requirements that govern the exercise of their delegated authority. [ 22 ] Only one candidate is considered in a non-advertised appointment process, whereas an advertised appointment process provides a structured framework to identify among all the candidates those who are qualified and to select the person to be appointed from them. [ 23 ] It is essential, in the interest of fairness and transparency, that a non-advertised appointment process is properly conducted within a structured framework, as would be expected in an advertised process. [ 24 ] The Public Service Commission’s ([NAME]) Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument requires the [NAME] head to ensure that individuals to whom appointment powers are subdelegated have completed all required training and that they commit to those roles. In particular, those persons must attest that once the qualifications are established, the appointees are not subjected to personal favouritism. They must also ensure that the assessment is inclusive and fulfils the duty to accommodate and that reasonable efforts are made to eliminate or mitigate biases or barriers. [ 25 ] Furthermore, s. 16 of the PSEA requires [NAME] heads and their delegates to comply with the [NAME]’s guidelines, including the Appointment Policy . This requires preparing an Articulation of the Selection Decision for all merit-based appointments. Based on that policy, each [NAME] head adopts within their organization directives that set out the circumstances under which it may be appropriate to use an advertised or a non-advertised appointment process; see [NAME] v. Secretary of the [NAME] Board , 2025 FPSLREB 41; [NAME] v. [NAME] of Citizenship and Immigration , 2008 PSST 24; and [NAME] v. [NAME] of Industry , 2019 FPSLREB 83 at paras. 53 to 93. [ 26 ] At the [NAME], the directives are incorporated into the Staffing Management Policy (in effect since July 2020, last updated in July 2023). It requires managers, consulting with human [NAME] advisors, to assess on a case-by-case basis the risks associated with the choice of appointment process. The term “risk” refers to the uncertainty that could undermine the achievement of staffing or management objectives or undermine the values of fairness and transparency that underpin appointments. The assessment rests on the probability and severity of a potential negative impact. Consequently, the scope and level of detail required in the Articulation of the Selection Decision must be proportional to the level of risk that the proposed appointment poses; see [NAME] v. [NAME] ([NAME]) , 2025 FPSLREB 7. [ 27 ] Managers assessing a candidate must document in writing the justification for their choice and clearly describe how they proceeded in the Articulation of the Selection Decision . They must assess the risk and explain, with appropriate detail proportional to the risk, why they chose a non-advertised process, and describe how the decision to appoint the person was made. This requirement rests on the principle that a clear and documented justification ensures the necessary transparency when the appointment does not result from an advertised process. [NAME] , at paras. 40 to 54; [NAME] , at paras. 75 to 82 and 96 to 98; and [NAME] , at paras. 119 to 127. [ 28 ] Issue 2: Did the respondent abuse its authority by resorting to a non-advertised process? [ 29 ] The complainant argues that the subdelegated manager, [NAME], Regional Director, IMS-QUE, did not have personal knowledge of [NAME]’s work when he made his assessment. He reproduced the information provided to him by the human [NAME] advisors and the candidate’s supervisors. Furthermore, his assessment and the Articulation of the Selection Decision rely primarily on [NAME]’s work as an OMS specialist from 2010 to 2019. However, this experience did not meet the merit criteria, which required it to be recent and significant; that is, acquired over two of the last four years. [ 30 ] According to the respondent, although there are administrative errors in the documents, this does not negate the appointee’s competency. [NAME]’s narrative assessment indicates that she nonetheless meets all the essential qualifications of the position. The Articulation of the Selection Decision explains that the decision to proceed with the appointment was made to stabilize the workforce and while considering the appointee’s extensive expertise in this highly specialized position. In addition, the subdelegated manager decided to proceed with a non-advertised appointment that was justified by an organizational need with respect to employment equity. [ 31 ] The complainant bears the burden of proof. Nevertheless, once her allegations appeared founded at first glance ( prima facie ), in light of the evidence, it was up to the respondent to provide a convincing explanation to refute them. The only explanation provided by the respondent was that there was an administrative error but that the appointee still met the merit criteria. However, the assessment of [NAME]’s experience as an OMS specialist conducted in May 2024 does not meet the merit criteria, which required that such experience to be recent and significant, specifically within two of the last four years; see Canada (Attorney General) v. [NAME] , 2012 FC 601 at para. 29. [ 32 ] On May 15, 2024, [NAME] signed the Articulation of the Selection Decision , in which he attests that [NAME] meets the statement of merit criteria. He assessed the risk of the appointment as “[translation] not very high”. He explained that the appointment allowed stabilizing the workforce and that it freed up a position for a regional OBS project officer. He notes that the selection decision was based on the following: [Translation] … … a high degree of expertise in the OBS field, experience as an OBS Specialist in both institutional settings and in the community, which allows for a better understanding of the operational reality and that of OBS Specialists. In addition, [NAME] worked as an OMS Specialist in institutions and communities from 2009 to 2019. In light of that, [NAME] meets all the desired criteria; specifically, she has extensive expertise, diverse knowledge in the OBS area, she is trained, autonomous, operational, and available immediately. … [ 33 ] I find that this explanation did not meet the merit criteria, as [NAME]’s experience as an OMS specialist was from 2010 to 2019. She was assessed in May 2024, and that experience did not meet the merit criteria, which required it to be recent and significant, in two of the last four years. [ 34 ] The explanation was insufficient, and the appointment’s risk was underestimated. It is exceptional to see a jump of four levels in an acting appointment, even more so if the appointment becomes indeterminate. This entailed a higher risk, but the context that led to the appointment was not mentioned in the Articulation of the Selection Decision . [ 35 ] I noted in cases of the Board and its predecessors that the usual progression of an employee during a promotional appointment is one to two levels at most, in which they gradually acquire skills that will be useful at a higher level. The explanations provided in the Articulation of the Selection Decision do not mention that [NAME]’s position was at the AS-01 group and level before she was appointed on an acting basis to an AS-05 position. That was a high risk factor that should have been considered when the indeterminate appointment was made. ([NAME] v. [NAME] (Department of Indigenous Services) , 2025 FPSLREB 40 at para. 45; [NAME] v. [NAME] of the Canada Border Services Agency , 2013 PSST 28 at paras. 6 and 19; and [NAME] v. [NAME] of Public Works and Government Services , 2010 PSST 10 at para. 5.) [ 36 ] It was neither a transparent nor a fair practice to appoint [NAME] to an indeterminate AS-02 position without her ever occupying that position and then to appoint her shortly after that to an indeterminate AS-05 position. It was not stated in the Articulation of the Selection Decision , although the indeterminate appointment to an AS-02 position only increased the risk with respect to the values of transparency and fairness. [ 37 ] It is reasonable to argue that [NAME]’s indeterminate appointment to the regional officer, data quality and [NAME], position helped stabilize the workforce since it had been filled on an acting basis for several years. However, the evidence demonstrates that the situation arose from a management approach that systematically favoured acting appointments. The practice extended even to indeterminate appointments to positions that employees did not actually hold, as they were assigned to acting roles in higher group-and-level positions. [ 38 ] All those appointment practices carry a high risk with respect to the values of fairness and transparency underlying appointments. An assessment at a fairly high risk level would have prompted deeper reflection on the choice of a non-advertised process. [ 39 ] Most importantly, the Articulation of the Selection Decision does not demonstrate that [NAME] met the merit criteria. As [NAME] described, his selection decision relied heavily on the appointee’s experience as an OMS specialist between 2010 and 2019. Yet, for that experience to meet the merit criterion, it had to be both recent and significant, meaning that it must have been acquired over at least two of the last four years, as explained later in this decision. [ 40 ] [NAME] testified that he did not draft this assessment, which contains serious errors. He did not review it before signing it. Such an approach cannot be described as either fair or transparent. [ 41 ] For those reasons, I conclude that there was an abuse of authority as set out in s. 77(1)(b) of the PSEA in the choice of the non-advertised process. That choice was made without respecting the values of fairness and transparency and without demonstrating that the appointee met the merit criteria. [ 42 ] Issue 3: Did the respondent abuse its authority by proceeding with the appointment when the assessment of the merit criteria contained errors? [ 43 ] The complainant claims that the appointee did not meet all the merit criteria. She explains that [NAME] left the OMS team in 2019 and that she did not hold the OMS specialist position from that date. She returned to the OMS team in 2021 as a regional officer, [NAME]. Despite that, the narrative assessment of the merit criteria incorrectly states that [NAME] held an OMS specialist position from 2010 to 2021, when in fact she left the position in 2019, and that experience could not be counted as recent and significant experience under the merit criteria. [ 44 ] Moreover, the complainant points out that the narrative assessment states that since 2023, [NAME], as an OMS project officer, provided [NAME] even though she never occupied that position. Although she was appointed to it, she occupied without interruption the position of regional officer, [NAME], from 2021 until her indeterminate appointment. [ 45 ] The respondent acknowledges that there are errors in the narrative assessment that [NAME] signed. He acknowledged them in his testimony. He considers that the errors did not affect the appointee’s ability to meet the merit criteria. [ 46 ] An examination of the essential qualifications for the position shows that the appointed person must have recent and significant experience using Excel, using or administering the OMS, and using data-quality control tools associated with the OMS, such as RADAR or Crystal reports. “[Translation] Recent and significant experience” is defined as frequent use over two years during the past four years. [ 47 ] The narrative assessment for experiences 1 and 3 of the merit criteria states that [NAME] regularly uses the Excel file in her role as a regional officer, [NAME]. She does it to ensure quality control of the data for the Quebec Region, particularly the data associated with RADAR and Crystal reports. [ 48 ] However, the narrative assessment of [NAME]’s qualifications relies largely on the experience that she acquired as an OMS specialist from 2010 to 2021, although she left the position in 2019. That experience did not meet the merit criteria, which required that it be recent and significant, meaning for two of the last four years. Furthermore, it details her experience as an acting OMS project officer, even though she never performed those duties. [ 49 ] Thus, for criterion 1, “[translation] recent and significant experience using Excel”, the first paragraph of the assessment focuses on her work with Excel as an OMS specialist, even though she had not worked in that position since 2019. Only the second paragraph describes her relevant experience since 2021 as a regional officer, [NAME]. [ 50 ] For criterion 2, “[translation] recent and significant experience using or administering the OMS”, the first paragraph mentions her experience as an OMS specialist from 2010 to 2021 and as an OMS project officer from 2023 to present. In the second paragraph, it states that between 2010 and 2021, she provided training on using the OMS, and that she was the contact person in her role as an OMS specialist and as an OMS project officer. Finally, the third and final paragraph of criterion 2 states that she held the OMS project officer position on an acting basis between 2021 and 2024 and that the OMS specialists referred to her. [ 51 ] The experience described in criterion 2 does not meet the merit criterion. Her experience as an OBS specialist was neither recent nor significant. Furthermore, she has never held an OMS project officer position and has no experience in that role. [ 52 ] The first paragraph states that she held the regional officer position from 2021 to 2024, but the experience described under criterion 2 is presented as related to other positions. Considering the number of errors and inaccuracies in the assessment, it remains uncertain to which position the experience described in the three paragraphs relates. [ 53 ] For criterion 3, “[translation] recent and significant experience using data-quality control tools associated with the OMS, such as RADAR or Crystal reports”, the first paragraph describes [NAME]’s relevant experience as a regional officer, [NAME]. But the second paragraph refers to her experience from 2010 to 2021 as an OMS specialist. That experience was neither recent nor significant and did not meet the merit criterion. [ 54 ] In a complaint alleging that the appointee did not meet the merit criteria, the Board’s role is to determine whether the assessment was tainted by serious errors which constitute an abuse of authority. It is not the Board’s role, on the basis of [NAME]’s testimony, to reassess the appointee or determine whether she would have met the merit criterion after the fact, had she been properly assessed; see [NAME] v. [NAME] of [NAME] Development Canada , 2011 PSST 11 at paras. 34 and 49 to 53; and [NAME] , at paras. 42 to 45. [ 55 ] [NAME] signed the narrative assessment as the hiring and the subdelegated manager. He acknowledged that it has errors. He was able to observe [NAME]’s work a few times. He has 75 employees in his group, and he explained that he did not prepare that document. [NAME]’s current and past supervisors, as well as [NAME], prepared it. [ 56 ] Surprisingly, [NAME]’s résumé, which was attached to her assessment in May 2024 for the indeterminate position, references only her experience as an administrative officer (AS-01) from September 2019 to “[translation] now”, which was some time before May 3, 2021, the date on which she began working on an acting basis as the regional officer, [NAME] (AS-05). [ 57 ] It is reasonable to conclude that the narrative assessment prepared for [NAME]’s acting appointment that covered the approximate period from May 2021 to May 2024 was reused, with little or no adaptation, to support her indeterminate appointment in 2024. This is further indication that the assessment carried out was neither complete nor current. It demonstrates that there was no thorough verification of the extent to which [NAME] met all the merit criteria applicable to the indeterminate appointment to the regional officer, [NAME], position. [ 58 ] It is essential that the person who assesses a candidate in a non-advertised process has a good knowledge of that person t. This requirement is usually met when the assessment is done and signed by a supervisor or manager who is well acquainted with their work or someone who is able to assess it properly. When that direct knowledge is lacking, the assessor is responsible for taking the necessary steps to ensure that their assessment still rests on a complete and reliable basis. [ 59 ] Assessors who sign the bottom of the narrative assessment are not just completing an administrative document. They are taking on their professional and decision-making responsibilities, which certify that they adhere to the guiding principles governing the integrity of staffing processes. By signing, they confirm that the assessment and the resulting decision comply with statutory requirements, staffing values, and procedural fairness obligations. [ 60 ] In that respect, the person signing the narrative assessment certifies in particular that they are making the following commitments: [ 61 ] The person signing the narrative assessment certifies that they adhere to the following principles: [Translation] … · I will, when establishing qualifications, ensure that individuals are not personally favoured in appointment processes. · I will consider employment equity objectives. · I will ensure that the rights of persons with a priority entitlement are respected. · I will ensure those conducting the assessment are competent and that qualifications are assessed in the official language(s) of choice of the candidate. · I will ensure the assessment is inclusive and conducted in a manner that is supportive of an individual’s right to accommodation …. · I will disclose any personal relationship I may have with candidates participating in appointment processes and ensure that the nature of this association, if any, is such that a decision can be rendered in an impartial manner. · I will make appointments based on merit without undue influence from any individual, group or political body. · I will ensure that appointment decisions comply with the requirements of the legislative framework and all policies related to staffing and staffing values. · I will work in collaboration with a human [NAME] advisor to obtain professional advice as well as guidance and assistance in staffing. · I will ensure that all appointment and related decisions are well documented. [ 62 ] By signing an erroneous narrative assessment and an Articulation of the Selection Decision without ensuring that [NAME] met the merit criteria, [NAME] made a serious error, even though he was not acting in bad faith. [ 63 ] As established in [NAME] v. Canada (National [NAME]) , 2006 PSST 8 at paras. 70 to 75, the fact that the subdelegated manager acted on inadequate or erroneous material constitutes a serious error or significant omission that implies an abuse of authority, even if it was unintentional. This is the second category of abuse of authority identified in [NAME] ; see also [NAME] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2009 FC 570; [NAME] v. [NAME] ([NAME] of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities) , 2024 FPSLREB 106 at paras. 70 to 79; and [NAME] v. Commissioner of the [NAME] , 2010 PSST 18 at paras. 31 to 33. [ 64 ] For all those reasons, I find that [NAME] was not properly assessed and that her assessment did not demonstrate that she met the merit criteria. As a result, I conclude that the respondent abused its authority under s. 77(1)(a) of the PSEA . [ 65 ] Question 4: Was the manager or assessor required to ensure that the establishment of the qualifications and the narrative assessment were not tainted by personal favouritism? [ 66 ] The complainant testified that the manner in which the indeterminate appointment was made gave rise to a perception of personal favouritism. No other candidate was considered in the non-advertised process in which [NAME], after acting in the position for an extended period, was appointed indeterminately. However, the complainant did not present any evidence demonstrating that the appointment was tainted by personal favouritism. [ 67 ] [NAME] testified that he had no personal relationship with the appointee. He signed the Articulation of the Selection Decision , certifying that he had no connection with the appointee. He also signed the narrative assessment, attesting in box E that there had been no personal favouritism from the establishment of the qualifications and in the assessment of the appointee. [ 68 ] I do not have to rule on the personal favouritism allegation because the complainant’s representative did not maintain it in her arguments. However, the representative stated that this allegation could not be ruled out for other individuals, besides [NAME], who might have been involved in the assessment. [ 69 ] In fact, the assessment of the merit criteria was conducted with some laxity that could have extended to the measures taken to ensure that the process was free of personal favouritism. [ 70 ] That comment from the complainant’s representative is not supported by evidence and is not considered determinative. However, it is important to remember that the hiring manager or the assessor, as the case may be, certifies that there was no personal favouritism, discrimination, or other form of abuse of authority in the process when they sign the narrative assessment certification. [ 71 ] The hiring manager or the assessor, as applicable, has an obligation to ensure that the establishment of the merit criteria and the documents used for assessing candidates are not tainted by personal favouritism or other forms of abuse of authority. When third parties write the assessment, this obligation involves reviewing it carefully, verifying that it adequately establishes merit, and ensuring that it is not tainted by an abuse of authority by its author. Recommendations [ 72 ] It is established case law that the Board may, following its examination of a complaint of abuse of authority, make recommendations to the respondent. The analysis of this complaint highlighted certain concerns that lead to the following recommendations; see Canada (Attorney General) v. [NAME] , 2011 FC 629 at paras. 51 to 54; [NAME] ; and [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2010 PSST 16. [ 73 ] This complaint reveals a lack of rigour in the conduct of the non-advertised appointment process. It is concerning that the process did not receive appropriate stewardship as applied to advertised processes. It is recommended that the framework applicable to non-advertised appointments be strengthened so that they are conducted in a structured and well-documented manner and ensure that the appointees meet the merit criteria and that the appointment processes are not tainted by abuse of authority. [ 74 ] The [NAME] head must ensure that the subdelegated people receive the information, advice, and human [NAME] services that they need to exercise their subdelegated powers. But the facts highlighted by [NAME]’s testimony and the documents in evidence show that [NAME] was not effective in its advisory and support role to the manager. It should have identified and corrected the errors in the merit assessment. Similarly, it should have supported [NAME] as the subdelegated manager and in his attestation that he signed in the narrative assessment. [ 75 ] It is necessary to strengthen the accountability and review mechanisms that [NAME] provides for managers’ statements in non-advertised processes. Managers are not required to have staffing expertise. They must also be able to rely on [NAME] to support them in their commitment and in the attestation they sign in the narrative assessment. [ 76 ] [NAME] advisors play a crucial role in the integrity of hiring processes. They must participate more closely in assessments, to determine if a non-advertised appointment process poses a high risk, provide increased support to managers, and alert them to errors in staffing files. Their involvement should not be limited to an administrative support role but should include real watchfulness with respect to a process’s compliance with PSEA requirements and the merit principle. [ 77 ] To that end, it is recommended that the human [NAME] advisor responsible for a file sign the narrative assessment and the Articulation of the Selection Decision . Such a practice would strengthen the advisor’s professional accountability for the contents of those documents and would help ensure better quality and greater rigour in appointment processes. [ 78 ] Furthermore, when the manager signing the narrative assessment and the Articulation of the Selection Decision has insufficient personal knowledge of the person being assessed, it is their responsibility to take the necessary steps to ensure that their assessment is still based on a complete and reliable appraisal. By signing, managers must ensure that they can meet their obligations, particularly by checking with human [NAME] advisors and supervisors about the accuracy and truthfulness of the information in the documents. [ 79 ] Managers must also ensure that the assessment is not tainted by any abuse of authority, including personal favouritism or any form of discrimination, whether this abuse comes from the author of the document or from anyone who contributed to its development. Their role is not limited to endorsing an assessment prepared by others; they are responsible for exercising real and independent oversight, to ensure that the process complies with the requirements of the PSEA and the merit principle. Corrective measures [ 80 ] It is well established that the Board may order the [NAME] head to revoke an appointment and to take any corrective measure that the Board considers appropriate after it makes a finding of abuse of authority (see s. 81 of the PSEA ). [ 81 ] According to the respondent, revocation is not appropriate because the appointee meets the merit criteria, even if the assessment of it contains errors. That is contrary to the complainant’s position, who argues that revocation is necessary when the evidence shows that the appointee does not meet the merit criteria. [ 82 ] Under s. 81 of the PSEA , the Board may order the [NAME] head to revoke an appointment as a corrective measure. The choice of the appropriate corrective measure or the decision to order such a measure is discretionary and depends on an assessment of the facts of each case. In some circumstances, a declaration that an abuse of authority occurred can be sufficient. In other cases, ordering corrective measures or revoking the appointment will be necessary. [ 83 ] It is a fundamental principle in the PSEA that public service appointments be based on merit. Revocation should be ordered when the appointment was not based on merit or when it is impossible to establish that it was. In those cases, revocation should be ordered even if the appointee no longer holds the position in question, as it would be inappropriate for there to be no consequences for an appointment that does not meet the merit criteria; see [NAME] v. [NAME] (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) , 2024 FPSLREB 33 (“ [NAME] ”) at paras. 42 to 61; [NAME] , at paras. 146 to 156; [NAME] , at paras. 102 to 108; [NAME] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FCA 192 at paras. 4 to 8; [NAME] , at paras. 183 to 188, 192, and 193; and [NAME] , at paras. 19 to 24 and 33 to 40. [ 84 ] However, depending on the facts, it may be appropriate not to revoke an appointment if the abuse of authority is related to the assessment of the complainant’s application and not that of the appointee; see [NAME] , at paras. 42 to 61; [NAME] v. [NAME] (Department of Public Works and Government Services) , 2024 FPSLREB 71 at paras. 51 and 52; [NAME] v. [NAME] (Department of Public Works and Government Services) , 2024 FPSLREB 142 at paras. 158 to 160; and [NAME] , at para. 117. [ 85 ] For the following reasons, I find that the appropriate corrective measure in this case is revocation of the appointment. The choice of a non-advertised process was not made in accordance with a fair and transparent procedure. Above all, the appointment was not based on merit. [NAME] did not conduct a complete and reliable assessment of the appointee considering the applicable merit criteria. [ 86 ] The fundamental principle of the PSEA , as of the legislation that preceded it, requires that appointments be based on merit. To uphold this principle, a person whose appointment has been found to not have been based on merit should not continue to hold the position to which they were appointed. [ 87 ] The legislator has provided a mitigation mechanism for the person whose appointment is revoked. Section 86 of the PSEA allows the respondent, if it considers it appropriate, to appoint that person to another position, provided that this person meets its essential qualifications. The new appointment carries a right of recourse under s. 83 of the PSEA but is limited to those affected by the corrective action. [ 88 ] For all of the above reasons, the Board makes the following order: (The Order appears on the next page) Order [ 89 ] The complaint is allowed. [ 90 ] The Board orders the [NAME] head to revoke [NAME]’s indeterminate appointment to the regional officer, [NAME], position. January 30, 2026. [NAME], a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board