Former CRA employee’s judicial review and appeal was unsuccessful

A former CRA employee’s judicial review and appeal regarding the minimum education requirements was unsuccessful.

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Canada Revenue Agency – Judicial review – Appeals – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness; Employment law – Appointment; Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Age.

Priest v. Canada (Attorney General), [2025] F.C.J. No. 1121, Federal Court of Appeal, June 30, 2025, G.R. Locke, R. LeBlanc and N. Goyette JJ.A.

The Appellant, Mr. Priest, was employed by the Canada Revenue Agency (the CRA) in the Scientific Research and Experimental Development group. When Mr. Priest was 69, he applied for the position of Research and Technology Manager but was screened out due to the minimum education requirements, which required a postgraduate degree in the field of science or engineering, or a bachelor’s degree in engineering or computer science with an acceptable combination of education, training, and/or experience.

Mr. Priest challenged this decision through the recourse mechanism available under section 54 of the Canada Revenue Agency Act – an individual feedback procedure before the manager responsible for the staffing process. He argued that the minimum education requirement amounted to discrimination against him based on his age, because the required degrees were apparently not available for people in his age group when he attended university. The first individual feedback procedure did not end in Mr. Priest’s favour. He successfully applied for judicial review, and the matter was remitted back to the Agency for reconsideration, but Mr. Priest was again unsuccessful. His application for a judicial review of the Manager’s second decision was dismissed and the Court held that the manager’s decision was reasonable and procedurally fair.

On appeal, Mr. Priest raised arguments respecting both the reasonableness of the decision and procedural fairness. He contended that the Court should apply a standard of review of correctness on both issues. The Court affirmed the long-standing standards of review in administrative law: reasonableness regarding the substance of the decision and correctness regarding procedural fairness.

The Appellant first argued that the decision lacked procedural fairness. Mr. Priest submitted that, after his first judicial review, the matter should have been remitted to the CRA Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner who would have more experience in staffing and discrimination issues than the Manager. However, pursuant to the legislation, the individual feedback recourse mandated that the Manager had jurisdiction over the individual feedback procedure. It was not for the Court to “direct the [CRA] to consider Mr. Priest’s complaint through another process” and the Court stated that “the rules of procedural fairness are not meant to guarantee one’s preferred choice of process”.

Mr. Priest also argued that the Manager’s decision was unreasonable, because they failed to consider all the evidence and caselaw regarding adverse impact discrimination and failed to perform an analysis under section 15 of the Charter. The standard of review on these issues requires deference to the administrative decision maker, and the Court reiterated that it is not for reviewing courts to unduly interfere with their decisions or the discharge of their function. The review must focus on whether the Manager’s decision reflected “an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis”.

The Court held that the Manager’s decision met this standard. Though their decision was not perfect, nor contained a formulaic legal analysis, administrative decision makers cannot be expected to deploy the same legal techniques as legal professionals or judges. A failure to perform to the standard of a lawyer or judge does not render the decision unreasonable.

The Manager’s decision was responsive to Mr. Priest’s main arguments. The Manager held that there were sufficient procedures in place at the CRA to ensure that minimum education requirements did not discriminate against employees on the basis of age. For example, when minimum education standards change, acquired rights may apply to deem employees meet the new standard for their position. However, in this case, Mr. Priest was applying for a position at a different level which required a specific educational degree in light of the business requirements of the job.  With respect to the Manager’s failure to conduct an analysis under s. 15 of the Charter, the Court considered the fact that reviewing courts in administrative law must review decisions “in light of the history and context of the proceedings in which they were rendered”. Mr. Priest did not raise a s. 15 argument before the Manager. Regardless, the Manager was sensitive to Charter and equality values in rendering their decision and determined that the minimum education requirement did not have a disproportionate adverse impact on Mr. Priest or those of his age group.

Mr. Priest’s appeal was dismissed with costs.

This case was digested by Rachel Wood of Harper Grey LLP.  If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact her directly at [email protected].