Background
Julie Préfontaine worked for the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) as a Manager, Regional Programs from 2008 to 2013, classified at the FB-06 level. In 2013, she accepted a lateral deployment to an FB-06 Senior Program Advisor position. In a parallel proceeding, the Federal Court of Appeal’s 2020 decision in Wilkinson v. Canada held that CBSA’s refusal to reclassify the MRP position to FB-07 was unreasonable and remitted the matter for redetermination, instructing the President to accept a prior Classification Grievance Committee recommendation for FB-07 classification.
Following the Wilkinson decision, Préfontaine filed a grievance on February 15, 2021, requesting retroactive FB-07 pay for 2008 to 2013 and restoration to an FB-07 position. In 2023, her 2021 grievance was granted in part: she received retroactive FB-07 pay for the years she held the MRP position (2008–2013), but the employer refused to overturn her 2013 decision to leave the position. Préfontaine did not seek judicial review of this decision.
On January 24, 2024, Préfontaine filed a second grievance claiming that had she known her MRP position should have been FB-07, she would not have accepted the FB-06 deployment. She requested adjustment to FB-07 level and retroactive pay from 2013 onward. The CBSA refused this grievance as untimely (filed beyond the 25-day limit) and on the merits.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Ngo dismissed the application for judicial review, applying the reasonableness standard. On timeliness, the court held it was not unreasonable for the employer to conclude the 2024 grievance was filed outside the 25-day time limit under the collective agreement. The triggering events—the 2013 deployment and the 2021 Wilkinson decision—both preceded 2024 by more than 25 days. The court noted that the essence of the 2021 and 2024 grievances was identical, and since Préfontaine did not judicially review the 2021 decision, it was open to the employer to view the 2024 filing as raising the same issue out of time.
On the merits, the court found the employer’s decision reasonable. The court rejected Préfontaine’s argument that she lacked information to make an informed decision in 2013, noting that the Wilkinson litigation was publicly known within CBSA, she had received managerial advice about retaining her position, and her decision to move was based partly on personal reasons. The court emphasized that an applicant’s disagreement with a decision, or the emergence of facts after a decision was made, does not render the decision unreasonable. The retroactive FB-07 pay she received for 2008–2013 aligned with Wilkinson’s intent, and the employer was entitled to decline to rewrite past employment decisions.
Key Takeaways
- Time limits in grievance procedures are strictly enforced: a grievance arising from events in 2013 and 2021 cannot be revived by reframing it as an “ongoing violation” in 2024.
- Employers may decline to overturn voluntary employment decisions (lateral moves, resignations) made in the past, even if the employee later claims she would have decided differently with different information.
- Under reasonableness review, courts do not substitute their preferred outcome for a reasonable administrative decision; multiple reasonable outcomes may flow from the same facts.
- An applicant’s failure to seek judicial review of an earlier decision on the same issue may support treating a later filing as untimely.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the scope of remedies available in complex employment classification disputes, particularly when an employee claims she would have made different career choices with different information. Although Préfontaine ultimately received retroactive pay reflecting the correct FB-07 classification (the core relief sought in Wilkinson), the court held the employer was not required to place her in a non-existent FB-07 position or revisit decisions she made voluntarily years earlier. The decision reinforces that retroactive pay can be a full remedy for misclassification, even if prospective relief is unavailable.
The case also provides guidance on timeliness in grievance procedures: framing a repeated claim as an “ongoing violation” does not reset the clock when the underlying events occurred outside the applicable window. For federal public sector employees, this illustrates the importance of filing grievances promptly or seeking immediate judicial review rather than re-litigating substantially identical claims years later.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.