�山����

Receivability As it was not until January 2019 that the Applicant requested management evaluation of the 2017 decision to transfer her to a new position, the requirements for receivability of this aspect of her application were not met. Her request for management evaluation was too late. There is logic to the Applicant’s explanation, that it was not until the time of the subsequent non-renewal decision that she realised the extent to which the prior transfer had left her vulnerable to termination. However, that of itself does not justify that the strict provisions as to timelines are not enforced (Christensen 2012-UNAT-218; Osman 2011-UNAT-147). Therefore, the aspect of the application that challenges the 2017 decision fails as not-receivable. Mootness The Applicant’s separation from service on 31 December 2018 never materialised. Contract extensions remained the status quo until the challenge to the Respondent’s non-renewal decision became moot on 13 March 2020, when the Applicant was separated for health reasons. When the non-renewal decision was overtaken by a separation for health reasons, there was no non-renewal related injury being suffered or continuing thereafter that would represent “collateral consequences”, which preclude a finding of mootness. As the Applicant separated from the Organization on grounds of ill-health and is in receipt of disability benefits as a result, the Tribunal cannot, in law, order further compensation be paid.