Air Canada v. Lorenz et al., (1999) 175 F.T.R. 211 (TD)

• Judge: Evans, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: August 26, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1999), 175 F.T.R. 211 (TD)

Air Can. v. Lorenz (1999), 175 F.T.R. 211 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] F.T.R. TBEd. OC.003

Air Canada (applicant) v. Arthur E. Lorenz and The Attorney General of Canada (respondents)

(T-2463-97)

Indexed As: Air Canada v. Lorenz et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Evans, J.

September 10, 1999.

Summary:

Lorenz filed an unjust dismissal complaint against Air Canada. The adjudicator appointed under the Canada Labour Code to determine the complaint was at the same time representing a client in an unjust dis­missal claim under provincial employment standards legislation. After five days of hearing a preliminary issue, Air Canada alleged bias and sought to have the adjudi­cator recuse himself. The adjudicator declined to recuse himself. Air Canada sought judicial review.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, held that the application was prema­ture. It was inappropriate to make a ruling on the issue until the adjudi­cator had ren­dered a final decision on the unjust dismissal com­plaint.

Administrative Law - Topic 2087

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (considerations incl. bias) - Bias -General - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3220 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3220

Judicial review - Interim applications - Lorenz filed an unjust dismissal complaint against Air Canada - The adjudicator appointed under the Canada Labour Code to determine the complaint was at the same time representing a client in an unjust dismissal claim under provincial employ­ment standards legislation - After five days of hearing a preliminary issue, Air Canada alleged bias and sought to have the adjudi­cator recuse himself - The adjudicator declined to recuse himself - Air Canada sought judicial review - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the application was premature - It was inap­propriate to make a ruling on the issue until the adjudicator had rendered a final decision on the unjust dismissal complaint.

Arbitration - Topic 7908

Judicial review - Jurisdiction of the courts - Interim rulings - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3220 ].

Courts - Topic 2283

Jurisdiction - Bars - Premature matters - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3220 ].

Labour Law - Topic 6046

Industrial relations - Complaints - Adju­dicators - Bias - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3220 ].

Cases Noticed:

Woloshyn v. Yukon Teachers Association, [1999] Y.J. No. 69 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

Bell v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.), [1971] S.C.R. 756, refd to. [para. 13].

Harelkin v. University of Regina, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 561; 26 N.R. 364; [1979] 3 W.W.R. 676; 96 D.L.R.(3d) 14, refd to. [para. 14].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3; 177 N.R. 325; 122 D.L.R.(4th) 129; 26 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 14].

Ontario College of Art et al. v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) (1992), 63 O.A.C. 393; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 738 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Ontario (Minister of Citizenship) et al. (1993), 62 O.A.C. 1 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 16].

Zündel v. Citron et al. (1999), 165 F.T.R. 113 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Refrigeration Workers Union, Local 516 v. Labour Relations Board of British Col­umbia (1986), 27 D.L.R.(4th) 676 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Lippé et autres v. Québec (Procureur gén­éral) et autres, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 114; 128 N.R. 1; 39 Q.A.C. 241; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 513, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Lippé - see Lippé et autres v. Què­bec (Procureur général) et autres.

University of Toronto v. Canadian Union of Education Workers, Local 2 (1988), 28 O.A.C. 295 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 37].

Pfeiffer v. Redling et al., [1996] 3 F.C. 584; 116 F.T.R. 173 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 37].

Pfeiffer v. Canada (Superintendent of Bankruptcy) - see Pfeiffer v. Redling et al.

Con-Way Central Express Inc. v. Arm­strong et al. (1997), 153 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 39].

Newfoundland Telephone Co. v. Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (Nfld.), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 623; 134 N.R. 241; 95 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 301 A.P.R. 271; 4 Admin. L.R.(2d) 121, refd to. [para. 41].

Cannon v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Assistant Commissioner), [1998] 2 F.C. 104; 139 F.T.R. 91 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 44].

Bissett et al. v. Canada (Minister of Labour) et al., [1995] 3 F.C. 762; 102 F.T.R. 172 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 44].

Howe v. Institute of Chartered Accountants (Ont.) (1994), 74 O.A.C. 26; 19 O.R.(2d) 483 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Counsel:

Richard Charney, for the applicant;

Guy Lemay, for the respondent, A.E. Lor­enz;

Joanne Fox and Scott McCrossin, for the respondent, Attorney General of Canada.

Solicitors of Record:

Heenan, Blaikie, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

Lavery, De Billy, Montréal, Québec, for the respondent, A.E. Lorenz;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, Attorney General of Canada.

This application was heard in Toronto, Ontario, on August 26, 1999, before Evans, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judg­ment on September 10, 1999.