Caselaw

Relevant paragraphs: paras. 30–41, 47, 50 — free expression and duty of loyalty not absolute.
Relevance: Criticism requires impairment of duties; grievor did not impair CBSA duties. (epe.lac-bac.gc.ca)

Principles relied upon:

• Duty of loyalty is not absolute.

• Public servants are not “silent members of society.”

• Discipline justified only where criticism impairs ability to perform duties or undermines operational integrity.

• Contextual balancing required.

2) Osborne v. Canada (Treasury Board)

[1991] 2 S.C.R. 69
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1991/1991canlii111/1991canlii111.html

Relevant paragraphs: paras. 59–60 — invalidation of overbroad expression restrictions.
Relevance: Public servants cannot be absolutely barred from expression on matters of public interest.

Principle:

Overbroad restrictions on political expression of public servants violate constitutional protections.

3A. Haydon v. Canada (Treasury Board), 2001 FCT 391

(Federal Court – Trial Division)

CanLII link:
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2001/2001fct391/2001fct391.html

Relevant paragraphs:
• para 108 – internal avenues pursued
• para 114 – absence of impairment evidence
• para 120 – public criticism justified in circumstances

Principles:
• Public servants may speak publicly where internal mechanisms fail.
• Employer must show actual impairment.
• Mere discomfort with criticism is insufficient.

Relevance to your case:
You raised data concerns; no operational impairment was demonstrated.

3B. Haydon v. Canada (Treasury Board), 2004 FC 749

CanLII link:
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fc/doc/2004/2004fc749/2004fc749.html

Relevant paragraph:
• para 59

Principle:
Public criticism not justified where no public safety issue or serious illegality established.

Relevance:
Provides contrast — shows that justification depends on context and seriousness.

3C. Canada (Attorney General) v. Haydon, 2005 FCA 249

(Federal Court of Appeal)

CanLII link:
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2005/2005fca249/2005fca249.html

Relevant paragraphs:
• paras 34–39

Principle:
Affirms contextual balancing; clarifies limits of Fraser.

Haydon strengthens three key points:

Internal discussion matters (you attempted engagement).
Employer must show actual impairment.
Public interest context is relevant.

It reinforces Fraser without expanding into a blanket gag rule.

4) King v. Canada (Treasury Board – CBSA)

2008 PSLRB 64
CanLII link (searchable):
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/pslreb/doc/2008/2008pslreb64/2008pslreb64.html

Relevant paragraphs: paras. 203, 217
Relevance: Public criticism permissible if content not knowingly or recklessly false; public domain info weighs against discipline.

Principles:

• Public criticism permissible if not knowingly or recklessly false.

• Use of public-domain information weighs against discipline.

II. Insubordination / Clear Instruction Requirement

5) KVP Co Ltd and Lumber & Sawmill Workers’ Union, Local 2537

1965 CanLII 1009 (ON LA)
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/1965/1965canlii1009/1965canlii1009.html

Principle: Rule must be clear, unequivocal, known prior to conduct.
Relevance: After-the-fact instruction does not support insubordination.

Relevant principles (KVP test):
• Rule must be reasonable
• Clear and unequivocal
• Communicated prior to discipline
• Employee must know breach may result in discipline

6) Panton v. Everywoman’s Health Centre Society

2000 BCCA 621 — Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Exact citation: Panton v. Everywoman’s Health Centre Society, 2000 BCCA 621
CanLII search text: “Panton v. Everywoman’s Health Centre Society 2000 BCCA 621”

Principle: Insubordination requires willful refusal of a clear instruction.
Relevance: No clear pre-existing instruction was communicated.

1988 CanLII 284 (BCCA)
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1988/1988canlii284/1988canlii284.html

Relevant paragraphs: paras. 25–29

Principle:
Insubordination requires willful refusal of a clear and unequivocal instruction.

III. Off-Duty Conduct — Nexus Requirement

7) Re Millhaven Fibres Ltd and OCAW, Local 9-670

[1967] OLAA No. 4
Exact citation: Millhaven Fibres Ltd v. OCAW, Local 9-670 [1967] OLAA No. 4
CanLII search text: “Millhaven Fibres Ltd OCAW Local 9-670 1967 OLAA No. 4”

Principle: Discipline for off-duty conduct requires real and material connection (reputation harm, operational impact).
Relevance: No actual harm to CBSA shown.

[1967] OLAA No. 4
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/1967/1967canlii1209/1967canlii1209.html

Principle:
Discipline for off-duty conduct requires real and substantial nexus to employer’s legitimate business interests:

• Harm to reputation
• Impairment of duties
• Workplace disruption
• Operational interference

IV. Reasonableness / Proportionality of Employer Restrictions

8) Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 30 v. Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd

2013 SCC 34
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc34/2013scc34.html

Relevant paragraphs: paras. 24–29
Relevance: Employer rules must be reasonable.

Principle:

Employer rules must be reasonable and proportionate.

9) Doré v. Barreau du Québec

2012 SCC 12
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2012/2012scc12/2012scc12.html

Relevant paragraphs: paras. 55–58
Relevance: Admin decisions must proportionately balance Charter values.

Principle:

Administrative decisions must proportionately balance Charter values; interference must impair expression no more than necessary.

V. Values & Ethics / Code Context

10) Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector

Treasury Board of Canada
https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=25049

Relevant sections: Respect for Democracy; Integrity; Stewardship.
Relevance: Use of publicly available data for transparent analysis aligns with public service values.

11) CBSA Code of Conduct

(Use employer PDF attachment; standard internal reference)

Relevant sections cited by employer:
• Social Media
• Private / Off-Duty Conduct
• Public Criticism
• Neglect of Duty

Relevance: Neither disparagement nor off-duty expression of data critique violates clear Code definitions.

Summary of Key Legal Themes

Expression: Duty of loyalty does not bar all public expression; must show real operational harm. (Fraser; Haydon; King)
Insubordination: Must be clear, pre-existing instruction. (KVP; Panton)
Off-Duty Conduct: Requires demonstrated nexus to employer’s interests. (Millhaven)
Reasonableness: Employer rules must be proportionate and reasonable. (Irving Pulp; Doré)
Values: Public data analysis done responsibly is consistent with Values and Ethics Code.

Core Legal Themes for FPSLREB

Fraser does not impose a whole-of-government speech alignment obligation.
Discipline requires impairment tied to operational duties.
Insubordination requires a clear, unequivocal, pre-existing order.
Off-duty speech requires real nexus and demonstrable harm.
Overbroad or prior-restraint style restrictions must be proportionate.
Use of public data for analysis aligns with stewardship unless demonstrably false.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse