Ãå±±½ûµØ

The Applicant indicated that he had been promised during a pre-interview presentation that the names of the assessors would be provided. The Respondent failed to present a plausible, or indeed any, basis for the non-response to the Applicant’s proactive inquiry as to the names of the assessors. It would have been proper, under the circumstances, for the Respondent to either dispute the fact of the promise or provide the requested information. The Respondent’s silence drew a finding of impropriety. If the Applicant had received the assessors’ names, he would have had the opportunity to raise his concerns as to potential bias before the day of the interview. Whether the Applicant tried to raise his concerns about bias on the day of the interview was disputed. This dispute would not have arisen if the Respondent had responded to the Applicant’s first email. The Applicant would not have had to write the second email had his first email been acknowledged and a response given. Rescission of the challenged decision was considered an inappropriate remedy based on the time that had elapsed, the fact that other candidates served in the position and the Applicant had since been promoted to an equivalent position. Compensation was an alternative to the rescission of the contested administrative decision. The Tribunal found that the Applicant proved that he suffered stress and resulting medical ailments due to the challenged decision.