Alberta Wheat Pool v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al., (1992) 151 N.R. 1 (FCA)

• Judge: Heald, J.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: November 04, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1992), 151 N.R. 1 (FCA)

Alta. Wheat Pool v. CLRB (1992), 151 N.R. 1 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter Of Canada Labour Relations Board Decision dated the 27th day of November 1991 (Board File: 555-3311) in respect of an application by Grain Services Union (C.L.C.) for certification pursuant to the Canada Labour Code;

And In The Matter Of section 22 of the Canada Labour Code Part 1, c. L-2, R.S.C. 1985 (as amended) and section 28 of the Federal Court Act, c. 10 (2d Supp.), R.S.A. 1985 (as amended)

Alberta Wheat Pool, Calgary, Alberta (applicant) v. Canadian Labour Relations Board and Grain Services Union (C.L.C.) (respondents)

(A-1271-91)

Indexed As: Alberta Wheat Pool v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Heald, J.A.

November 9, 1992.

Summary:

The Alberta Wheat Pool applied to set aside a decision of the Canada Labour Rela­tions Board, which certified a union as the bargaining agent for a unit of the Wheat Pool's employees. The Wheat Pool submitted that the Board did not have constitutional jurisdiction over certain employees and applied under rule 1102(1) to add an affida­vit to the record.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application to add the affidavit.

Practice - Topic 9031

Appeals - Evidence on appeal - Admis­sion of "new evidence" - The Alberta Wheat Pool applied to set aside a decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board and applied under rule 1102(1) to add an affi­davit to the record - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application under rule 1102(1), where the requirements for such an order were not met, ie., that the evidence was not discoverable by reason­able diligence before the end of trial and that the evidence was creditable and prac­tically conclusive on the issue.

Practice - Topic 9075

Appeals - Federal Court of Appeal - Evidence on appeal - [See Practice - Topic 9031 ].

Cases Noticed:

Goldner v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (1974), 1 N.R. 420 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Mercer v. Sijan (1976), 14 O.R.(2d) 12 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Optical Recording Corp. v. Minister of National Revenue (1987), 79 N.R. 23 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Lubrication Engineers Inc. v. Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, [1990] 2 F.C. 525; 109 N.R. 311 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Rules, rule 1102(1) [para. 1].

Rules of Court, Federal Court - see Fed­eral Court Rules.

Counsel:

Robert G. Richards, for the applicant;

Janet McMurtry, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

MacPherson, Leslie and Tyerman, Saska­toon, Saskatchewan, for the applicant;

Taylor & Company, Regina, Saskatche- wan, for the respondents.

This application was heard on November 4, 1992, at Regina, Saskatchewan, before Heald, J.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision on November 9, 1992.