Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Procedural fairness breached by reliance on undisclosed documents central to the decision.

• Performance concerns cited were previously resolved and documented favorably.

• The redeployment of the applicant was not reasonably justified based on internal classifications.

• Isolation in the workplace was improperly attributed to the applicant rather than systemic exclusion.

• Decision-making lacked engagement with contradictory evidence and key submissions.

• Judicial review granted due to cumulative flaws rendering the decision unreasonable.

Facts and outcome of the case

Heather Hamilton, a senior executive in the federal public service, served as the Regional Director General for the Prairies Region within the Parole Board of Canada (PBC). Despite early successes and strong performance evaluations between 2018 and 2021, concerns emerged in 2022 regarding her engagement, decision-making, and timeliness. These concerns led to a downgraded performance rating and placement on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). Hamilton disputed the validity and timing of this assessment, particularly as it came without prior feedback and during a period marked by staffing shortages and operational challenges.

In mid-2022, after requesting mediation to address perceived misunderstandings, Hamilton went on medical leave due to illness. Upon her return, she was issued a Letter of Expectations outlining new and restrictive work conditions, which were not imposed on peers in similar roles. She was removed from key responsibilities and communications, later reassigned to a Special Deployment project of low organizational priority and lacking alignment with her expertise. The project had previously been rejected internally due to its Tier 3 classification and absence of funding. Despite her objections and requests for discussion, this deployment was enforced by directive.

Hamilton filed three grievances: one for harassment and discrimination, another contesting her negative performance evaluation, and a third objecting to her redeployment to Québec. The PBC Chairperson denied all grievances in a single decision letter, asserting the management acted in good faith and attributing Hamilton’s isolation and performance deficiencies to her own lack of engagement.

The Federal Court, in its decision on June 5, 2025, found in Hamilton’s favor. Justice Zinn held that the Chairperson’s decision was both procedurally unfair and substantively unreasonable. Procedurally, Hamilton was not given adequate notice of the specific facts and documents used against her, particularly those she had reasonably believed were resolved in her favor. Substantively, the Court found serious flaws in the reasoning, including failure to address contradictory evidence, logical inconsistencies regarding project priority, and inappropriate attribution of institutional exclusion to the applicant’s conduct. The decision also failed to engage with the central argument that adverse actions closely followed her medical leave.

As a remedy, the Court quashed the February 2024 decision and remitted all three grievances to a new Chairperson for reconsideration. The reconsideration must give Hamilton proper notice of any prejudicial facts, engage with the counter-evidence, and consider her arguments regarding the timeline of retaliatory actions. While Hamilton sought broader remedies, including damages and corrective orders, the Court declined to grant them, citing the principle that substitution is only appropriate in exceptional cases. She was, however, awarded $2,500 in costs, as agreed by both parties.