In the case of Tulk v. Canada (Attorney General), the applicant, Andrew Tulk, challenged a decision made by the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (the Board) regarding his grievance on a harassment complaint investigation. The Board dismissed the applicant's grievance, citing lack of jurisdiction under paragraph 209(1)(b) of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act. The applicant appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal, arguing that the Board had ignored evidence. However, the court found that the applicant's disagreement with the Board's interpretation of the evidence was not enough to warrant intervention. The court determined that the Board had the authority to find that it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant had voluntarily retired, which is considered a de facto termination of employment. Unless a grievance relates to disciplinary action, the Board does not have jurisdiction to hear it. The court also found no procedural unfairness or bias in the case and dismissed the application for judicial review, ordering the applicant to pay costs.