Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• CRA’s education requirement for promotion found not to constitute age discrimination.

• Mr. Priest’s acquired rights for his position did not extend to higher-level roles.

• The individual feedback mechanism was deemed an appropriate procedural recourse.

• No procedural unfairness was found in how the staffing decision was reconsidered.

• Section 15 Charter arguments were implicitly addressed but not formally analyzed.

• The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the staffing decision and dismissed the appeal with costs.

Facts and outcome of the case

Christopher Priest was employed by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) as a Research Technology Advisor (CO-2 level) from 2009 until his retirement in 2022. In 2020, he applied for a promotion to a Research and Technology Manager (CO-3 level) position. However, he was screened out of the hiring process because he did not meet the minimum education requirement, which mandated either a master’s degree in a relevant field or a bachelor’s degree with an acceptable combination of training and experience. This requirement had been introduced in 2019 and applied to both CO-2 and CO-3 roles. Although Mr. Priest retained his CO-2 position under “acquired rights,” these rights did not extend to the CO-3 level he was seeking.

Mr. Priest challenged the staffing decision through the CRA’s internal individual feedback mechanism, arguing the education requirement discriminated against him on the basis of age. He claimed that older candidates were unfairly excluded because computer science degrees were not available when they were students. His challenge was initially dismissed, but the Federal Court set that decision aside in 2022, finding that the CRA had failed to properly consider the age discrimination aspect. On reconsideration, the CRA again denied his request, and Mr. Priest pursued judicial review a second time.

In 2024, the Federal Court upheld the second decision, finding it to be reasonable and procedurally fair. Mr. Priest then appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. The appellate court found no error in how the Federal Court applied the standards of review. It agreed that the Manager had sufficiently addressed Mr. Priest’s claims, including the age discrimination concerns and section 15 of the Charter, even if not in a formalized Charter framework. The court emphasized that administrative decisions are not held to the same legal drafting standards as judicial rulings, provided the reasoning is coherent and responsive.

Ultimately, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It found that the education requirement was reasonable, applied fairly, and did not disproportionately exclude candidates based on age. The court also confirmed that the individual feedback process was the appropriate venue for the complaint. Mr. Priest was ordered to pay $750 in all-inclusive costs to the Attorney General of Canada.