±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision to dismiss the former staff member¡¯s request for anonymity, as he had ignored the deadline set by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in an Order.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the former staff member committed sexual exploitation by engaging in a romantic and sexual relationship with a vulnerable refugee, who put herself in danger in engaging in a premarital relationship with him. He abused his position of trust by promising to marry her to persuade her to have sexual relations with him. When she pushed him about his promises, he threatened her with an investigation that could result in the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence. It held that the Complainant¡¯s testimony was consistent with her earlier statements, except for the date of the incident. However, the correction of the date she made at the hearing was found to be in good faith and did not undermine her credibility. Her account was corroborated by two other staff members, M.V. and M.M., both of whom testified before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that the former staff member failed to show that these witnesses had any motive to falsely implicate him. It noted that the former...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly determined that the non-selection decision was superseded and rendered moot by the Administration's subsequent rescission of the decision, which ended the selection process without anyone being selected for the position. It concluded that, from that moment, the non-selection decision ceased to have any legal effect and was no longer a live issue on which the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had jurisdiction to pass judgment on.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further affirmed that it was entirely within the Administration¡¯s authority to rescind the non-selection decision given the procedural irregularities...

As indicated by the Respondent in his reply, the selected candidate signed the letter of appointment and assumed her functions on 19 June 2024. She further completed the onboarding formalities on 24 June 2024. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that it can no longer entertain the instant application, which was filed on 28 June 2024, thus after the contested decision has been implemented. Granting an injunction would require reversing the onboarding of the selected candidate, which it clearly cannot do.

An application for suspension of action can only be entertained under the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal when the challenged contested decision is the subject of an ongoing management evaluation (see Onana 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-008, para. 19; Igbinedion 2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-159, para. 20). In the present case, the Applicant¡¯s management evaluation request was no longer pending. The evidence showed that the Deputy High Commissioner completed the management evaluation on 27 June 2024, and that the Applicant received the outcome of his management evaluation request the same day. Consequently, as the management...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, by the rationale applicable to appeals and specific claims, allowed the staff member to withdraw the earlier motion without justification. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the motion to withdraw the motion to increase the page limit of the appeal brief.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member did not seek an interim measure for temporary relief which was consistent with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment; on the contrary, he sought the opposite, i.e., anonymization which the Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal had not granted him. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the prior ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment was res judicata as to the question of anonymity and could be reversed, if at all, only through a revision of judgment. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the staff member¡¯s motion for interim measures.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT acted correctly by conducting a judicial review of the case.

It found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly assessed the credibility of the witnesses who testified before it and correctly relied on the credible testimony of Ms. V, who had no motive to lie, to conclude that it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the former staff member had sexually harassed her by making comments of a sexual nature in May and December 2020.While Ms. V¡¯s testimony alone would have been sufficient in this context, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it was corroborated by colleagues who were...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had a medical condition requiring attention which impacted his ability to return to work, and he had consented to the Independent Medical Examination and had not challenged those records before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT nor on appeal.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that even if ST/AI/2019/1 were applicable to ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR staff members or taken as a model of just practice, it would not have rendered the Independent Medical Examination improper.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no basis to overturn the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination that there had been no evidence of bias or conflict of interest in either the medical...