����AV

The Tribunal found that the facts of the case created a situation in which a fair-minded observer would have concluded that there was a real possibility that the presence of that senior official on the interview panel would lead to a reasonable perception of bias. It was thus unreasonable for that Panel member not to, at least, have raised the matter of a perceived conflict of interest with the panel and, ultimately, not to have recused himself from sitting on it. However, since there was no evidence that the presence of the senior manager had an impact on the outcome of the selection process for the Applicant, the Tribunal did neither order rescission of the selection decision nor compensation for material damages. It did, however, order moral damages. Conflict of interest: The relevant test for a person to consider whether he/she ought to recuse him/herself from sitting on an interview panel is the existence of a reasonable perception of bias from the perspective of a fair-minded observer. A staff member’s subjective fear of bias cannot in itself be sufficient to support a finding that a conflict of interest exists, nor is the actual existence of such conflict of interest necessary. Impact on the selection decision: In the absence of evidence that the presence of a person who ought to have recused him/herself from an interview panel, had an impact on the outcome of the selection process for the Applicant, the Tribunal cannot order rescission or compensation for material damages. It cannot, either, base its conclusions in this respect on speculations, such as, that the Applicant may have performed better at the interview if said person had not been a member of the Panel.