Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. v. Wilson, (2016) 485 N.R. 99 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Brown JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 19, 2016
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2016), 485 N.R. 99 (SCC);2016 SCC 29

Atomic Energy of Can. Ltd. v. Wilson (2016), 485 N.R. 99 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2016] N.R. TBEd. JL.008

Joseph Wilson (appellant) v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (respondent) and Canadian Labour Congress, Canadian Association for Non-Organized Employees, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications and Canadian Association of Counsel to Employers (interveners)

(36354; 2016 SCC 29; 2016 CSC 29)

Indexed As: Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. v. Wilson

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Brown JJ.

July 14, 2016.

Summary:

Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (Atomic) dismissed Wilson from his employment without cause. Atomic paid him six months' severance pay. Wilson complained under s. 240 of the Canada Labour Code that he was "unjustly dismissed", and was therefore entitled to a remedy. Atomic submitted that dismissals without cause were not automatically unjust dismissals under the Code. The legal point had divided adjudicators into two schools of thought. A labour adjudicator concluded that Wilson had made out his complaint: as a matter of statutory interpretation, the Code only permitted dismissals for cause. Atomic applied for judicial review, alleging that the adjudicator's decision was unreasonable.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported at 435 F.T.R. 300, found that the adjudicator's statutory interpretation decision was unreasonable. Nothing in Part III of the Code precluded employers from dismissing non-unionized employees on a without cause basis. Wilson appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 467 N.R. 201, reviewed the issue on a standard of correctness and, in the result, dismissed the appeal. Wilson appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Moldaver, Cིཾté and Brown, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal. The standard of review was reasonableness. The adjudicator's decision was reasonable. Abella, J., in obiter, proposed revisions to the standard of review.

Administrative Law - Topic 3202

Judicial review - General - Scope or standard of review - [See Labour Law - Topic 9353 ].

Labour Law - Topic 6

General principles and definitions - General - Legislation - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "[a]t common law, a non-unionized employee could be dismissed without reasons if he or she was given reasonable notice or pay in lieu. The issue in this appeal is whether Parliament's intention behind amendments to the Canada Labour Code in 1978 was to offer an alternative statutory scheme consisting of expansive protections much like those available to employees covered by a collective agreement. In my respectful view, like almost all of the hundreds of adjudicators who have interpreted the scheme, I believe that is exactly what Parliament's intention was." - See paragraph 1.

Labour Law - Topic 9071

Public service labour relations - Remedies - General - [See Labour Law - Topic 9354 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9153

Public service labour relations - Discipline and dismissal of civil or public servants - Dismissal - General - [See Labour Law - Topic 9354 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9353

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - Decisions of adjudicators, arbitrators, grievance appeal boards or officers - Scope of review (incl. standard) - A non-unionized employee was terminated without cause by a federal Crown corporation - He had a clean disciplinary record - The employer provided a severance package - The employee filed an "unjust dismissal" complaint (Canada Labour Code, s. 240(1)) - A labour adjudicator allowed the complaint - The adjudicator concluded that an employer could not resort to severance payments, however generous, to avoid a determination under the Code about whether the dismissal was unjust - The reviewing judge held that the adjudicator's decision was unreasonable because, in his view, nothing in Part III of the Code precluded employers from dismissing non-unionized employees on a without-cause basis - The Federal Court of Appeal agreed, but reviewed the issue on a standard of correctness - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the employee's appeal - "The parties before this Court, as they had in all the prior judicial proceedings, accepted that the standard of review was reasonableness. I agree. The decisions of labour adjudicators or arbitrators interpreting statutes or agreements within their expertise attract a reasonableness standard ... Applying that standard, the Adjudicator's decision was reasonable and consistent with the approach overwhelmingly applied to these provisions since they were enacted. It is true that a handful of adjudicators have taken a different approach to the interpretation of the Code, but as this Court has repeatedly said, this does not justify deviating from a reasonableness standard ... . Nor do I accept the position taken in this case by the Federal Court of Appeal that even if a reasonableness review applied, the Adjudicator should be afforded 'only a narrow margin of appreciation' because the statutory interpretation in this case 'involves relatively little specialized labour insight'. As this Court has said, the reasonableness standard must be applied in the specific context under review. But to attempt to calibrate reasonableness by applying a potentially indeterminate number of varying degrees of deference within it, unduly complicates an area of law in need of greater simplicity." - See paragraphs 15 to 18.

Labour Law - Topic 9354

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - Decisions of adjudicators, arbitrators, grievance appeal boards or officers - Unreasonable decisions - A non-unionized employee was terminated without cause by a federal Crown corporation - He had a clean disciplinary record - The employer provided a severance package - The employee filed an "unjust dismissal" complaint (Canada Labour Code, s. 240(1)) - A labour adjudicator allowed the complaint - The adjudicator concluded that an employer could not resort to severance payments, however generous, to avoid a determination under the Code about whether the dismissal was unjust - The reviewing judge held that the adjudicator's decision was unreasonable - In his view, nothing in Part III of the Code precluded employers from dismissing non-unionized employees on a without-cause basis - The Federal Court of Appeal agreed - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the employee's appeal - "The issue here is whether the Adjudicator's interpretation of ss. 240 to 246 of the Code was reasonable. The text, the context, the statements of the Minister when the legislation was introduced, and the views of the overwhelming majority of arbitrators and labour law scholars, confirm that the entire purpose of the statutory scheme was to ensure that non-unionized federal employees would be entitled to protection from being dismissed without cause under Part III of the Code. The alternative approach of severance pay in lieu falls outside the range of 'possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law' because it completely undermines this purpose by permitting employers, at their option, to deprive employees of the full remedial package Parliament created for them. The rights of employees should be based on what Parliament intended, not on the idiosyncratic view of the individual employer or adjudicator." - See paragraphs 39 and 40.

Statutes - Topic 523.1

Interpretation - Benefits-conferring legislation - [See Labour Law - Topic 9354 ].

Counsel:

James A. LeNoury, Avi Sirlin and Reagan Ruslim, for the appellant;

Ronald M. Snyder and Eugene F. Derényi, for the respondent;

Steven Barrett and Louis Century, for the intervener, the Canadian Labour Congress;

Stacey Reginald Ball and Anne Marie Frauts, for the intervener, the Canadian Association for Non-Organized Employees;

Christopher D. Pigott and Christina E. Hall, for the interveners, the Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications and the Canadian Association of Counsel to Employers.

Solicitors of Record:

LeNoury Law, Toronto, Ontario, Avi Sirlin, Toronto, Ontario and Dunsmore Wearing, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Fogler, Rubinoff, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent;

Goldblatt Partners, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Labour Congress;

Ball Professional Corporation, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Association for Non-Organized Employees;

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin, Toronto, Ontario, for the interveners, the Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications and the Canadian Association of Counsel to Employers.

This appeal was heard on January 19, 2016, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Brown JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court delivered the following judgment and reasons, in both official languages, on July 14, 2016:

Abella, J., reasons for judgment - see paragraphs 1 to 69;

McLachlin, C.J.C., and Karakatsanis, Wagner and Gascon, JJ., joint concurring reasons - see paragraph 70;

Cromwell, J., concurring reasons - see paragraphs 71 to 73;

Cིཾté and Brown, JJ. (Moldaver, J., concurring), joint dissenting reasons - see paragraphs 74 to 149.