Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. v. Jindal, (1996) 110 F.T.R. 221 (TD)

• Judge: Cullen, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 26, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1996), 110 F.T.R. 221 (TD)

Atomic Energy of Can. Ltd. v. Jindal (1996), 110 F.T.R. 221 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

The Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (applicant) v. Anil Jindal (respondent)

(T-636-94)

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

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Cullen, J.

March 26, 1996.

Summary:

Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) terminated Jindal's employment after a corporate reorganization. Jindal complained to an adjudicator appointed under s. 242 of the Canada Labour Code. The adjudicator allowed the complaint and ordered Jindal reinstated. AECL applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the application.

Labour Law - Topic 9362

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - Decisions of adjudicators or grievance appeal boards - Excess of jurisdiction - [See Master and Servant - Topic 8350 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 8350

Employment and labour standards - Jurisdiction and powers of director, tribunal, referees or officers - Excess of jurisdiction - Section 242(3.1)(a) of the Canada Labour Code provided that no unjust dismissal complaint may be considered by an adjudicator if the complainant has been laid off because of lack of work or "discontinuance of a function" - Here, the adjudicator allowed a complaint after holding that there had not been "discontinuance of a function" - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, quashed the adjudicator's decision because he exceeded his jurisdiction when he made it in that there was no evidence supporting his finding that there had not been a "discontinuance of a function" - In fact, the evidence supported the contrary.

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canada (Attorney General) and Bernard, [1994] 2 F.C. 447; 164 N.R. 361; 17 Admin. L.R.(2d) 2 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

Flieger v. New Brunswick, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 651; 155 N.R. 1; 138 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 354 A.P.R. 161; 104 D.L.R.(4th) 292; 48 C.C.E.L. 1, consd. [para. 8].

National Corn Growers' Association et al. v. Canadian Import Tribunal, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1324; 114 N.R. 81; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 449, refd to. [para. 9].

Dayco (Canada) Ltd. v. National Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 230; 152 N.R. 1; 63 O.A.C. 1; 102 D.L.R.(4th) 609; 93 C.L.L.C. 14,032, refd to. [para. 9].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Labour Code - see Labour Code.

Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, sect. 242(3.1)(a) [para. 6].

Counsel:

Paul D. Edwards, for the applicant;

Ken S. Maclean, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Duboff, Edwards, Haight & Schachter, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the applicant;

Thompson, Dorfman, Sweatman, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on March 4, 1996, by Cullen, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division.

Cullen, J., delivered the following decision at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 26, 1996.