Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. v. Wilson, (2015) 467 N.R. 201 (FCA)

• Judge: Stratas, Webb and Near, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: May 13, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2015), 467 N.R. 201 (FCA);2015 FCA 17

Atomic Energy v. Wilson (2015), 467 N.R. 201 (FCA)

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: [2015] N.R. TBEd. FE.008

Joseph Wilson (appellant) v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (respondent)

(A-312-13; 2015 FCA 17; 2015 CAF 17)

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

Federal Court of Appeal

Stratas, Webb and Near, JJ.A.

January 22, 2015.

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 adjudicator adjourned the remedies hearing until after the judicial review was finally decided. Wilson argued that the judicial review was premature.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported at 435 F.T.R. 300, dismissed the prematurity objection. On the merits of the judicial review, the Court found that the adjudicator's statutory interpretation decision was unreasonable. The Court quashed the adjudicator's decision and remitted the matter back for decision. Wilson appealed on both the prematurity issue and the reasonableness of the adjudicator's decision.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 3202

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

Administrative Law - Topic 3353.1

Judicial review - General - Practice - Bifurcation of judicial review application - [See second Courts - Topic 2283 ].

Courts - Topic 2283

Jurisdiction - Bars - Premature matters - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that "[t]he general rule against premature judicial reviews reflects at least two public law values. One is good administration - encouraging cost savings, efficiencies, promptness and allowing administrative expertise and specialization to be fully brought to bear on the problem before reviewing courts are involved. Another is democracy - elected legislators have vested the primary responsibility of decision-making in adjudicators, not the judiciary. The weighty nature of these public law values explains the force and pervasiveness of the general rule against premature judicial reviews. Indeed, in appropriate cases, the general rule can form the basis of a preliminary motion to strike. ... Such motions serve to nip in the bud premature judicial reviews that corrode these values. The force and pervasiveness of the general rule against premature judicial reviews and the need to discourage premature forays to reviewing courts means that the exceptions to the general rule are most rare and preliminary motions to strike are regularly entertained." - See paragraphs 31 to 33.

Courts - Topic 2283

Jurisdiction - Bars - Premature matters - A labour adjudicator adjourned the remedies hearing until after the judicial review application was finally decided - The central issue in the application was whether Part III of the Canada Labour Code permitted dismissals on a "without cause" basis - The legal point had divided adjudicators into two schools of thought, for years - The Federal Court rejected the applicant's prematurity objection and considered the merits of the judicial review - The applicant appealed the rejection - The Federal Court of Appeal, on the appellate standard of review, held that there were no grounds to set aside the Federal Court's exercise of discretion in favour of determining the judicial review - "The Federal Court instructed itself correctly as to the applicable principles and recognized the very high threshold that the applicant must meet. Then it applied that law to the particular circumstances before it. This was an exercise suffused in factual appreciation and fact-based discretion, and, thus, can only be set aside in this Court on the basis of palpable and overriding error ... . In this case, there is no such error. ... The adjudicator had many defensible reasons based on policy and fact for acting as he did. ... In these unusual circumstances, this judicial review was not unlike a referral of a legal question to the Federal Court ... .T]he rationales underlying the general rule against premature judicial reviews do not sound loudly here. In fact, they support it." - See paragraphs 34 to 41.

Labour Law - Topic 6

General principles and definitions - General - Legislation - [See Labour Law - Topic 9354 ].

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) - The central legal issue before the labour adjudicator concerned a statutory interpretation question: whether Part III of the Canada Labour Code permitted dismissals on a "without cause" basis - The legal point had divided adjudicators into two schools of thought, for many years - The adjudicator in the case at bar concluded that the Code only permitted dismissals for cause - The Federal Court, conducting reasonableness review, found that the Code did permit dismissals without cause - The Federal Court of Appeal considered the standard of review - "In this case, the specialized expertise of adjudicators has not led to one accepted answer on the statutory interpretation issue before us. Further, the persistent discord - quite irresolvable among adjudicators - means that here, the rule of law concerns predominate. Therefore, in my view, the standard of review on this statutory interpretation point is correctness. Even if the standard of review were reasonableness ... the statutory interpretation point before us involves relatively little specialized labour insight beyond the regular means the courts have at hand when interpreting a statutory provision. Accordingly, if we were to conduct reasonableness review in this case, we would afford the adjudicator only a narrow margin of appreciation" - See paragraphs 44 to 58.

Labour Law - Topic 9354

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - Decisions of adjudicators, arbitrators, grievance appeal boards or officers - Unreasonable decisions - The Federal Court of Appeal rejected the appellant's submission that a dismissal without cause was automatically "unjust" under Part III of the Canada Labour Code - "An adjudicator must examine the circumstances of the particular case to see whether the dismissal is 'unjust'." - Key to reaching that conclusion was the relationship between the common law of employment, and Part III of the Code - In Part III, Parliament set out a complaints mechanism and remedies for "unjust" dismissals - Section 242(3) of the Code empowered an adjudicator to consider whether the dismissal was unjust - Where there was no language specifically ousting the common law, the question was whether the language in s. 242(4)(b) of the Code (setting out statutory remedies not available under the common law), could live together with the common law - Here, it could - "[I]t is evident that Parliament largely intended that Part III of the Code offer employees more remedies than exist at common law. ... I do accept that Part III of the Code is benefits-conferring legislation. ... [W]hile the pro-benefits principle exists, it cannot be used as a licence to amend the law that Parliament has made." - See paragraphs 59 to 86.

Statutes - Topic 523.1

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

Cases Noticed:

Powell (C.B.) Ltd. v. Canada Border Services Agency (President) et al., [2011] 2 F.C.R. 332; 400 N.R. 367; 2010 FCA 61, dist. [para. 24 et seq.].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 25].

Agraira v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al., [2013] 2 S.C.R. 559; 446 N.R. 65; 2013 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 25].

D'Errico v. Canada (Attorney General) (2014), 459 N.R. 167; 2014 FCA 95, refd to. [para. 30].

Dennis v. Adams Lake Indian Band (2011), 419 N.R. 385; 2011 FCA 37, refd to. [para. 30].

Community Panel of the Adams Lake Indian Band v. Adams Lake Indian Band - see Dennis v. Adams Lake Indian Band.

Stemijon Investments Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2011), 425 N.R. 341; 341 D.L.R.(4th) 710; 2011 FCA 299, refd to. [para. 30].

JP Morgan Asset Management (Canada) Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [2014] D.T.C. 5001; 450 N.R. 91; 2013 FCA 250, refd to. [para. 32].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 33].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22; 147 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 38].

Forest Ethics Advocacy Association et al. v. National Energy Board et al. (2014), 465 N.R. 152; 2014 FCA 245, refd to. [para. 38].

Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Superintendent of Financial Services (Ont.) et al., [2004] 3 S.C.R. 152; 324 N.R. 259; 189 O.A.C. 201; 2004 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 43].

Redlon Agencies Ltd. v. Norgren, [2005] F.T.R. Uned. A17; 139 A.C.W.S.(3d) 1018; 2005 FC 804, refd to. [para. 45].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654; 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 46].

Roberts v. Bank of Nova Scotia (1979), 1 L.A.C.(3d) 259, refd to. [para. 47]; consd. [para. 83].

Champagne v. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., [2012] C.L.A.D. No. 57, refd to. [para. 47].

Iron v. Kanaweyimik Child and Family Services Inc., [2002] C.L.A.D. No. 517, refd to. [para. 47].

Lockwood v. B&D Walter Trucking Ltd., [2010] C.L.A.D. No. 172, refd to. [para. 47].

Stack Valley Freight Ltd. v. Moore, [2007] C.L.A.D. No. 191, refd to. [para. 47].

Morriston v. Gitanmaax Band, [2011] C.L.A.D. No. 23, refd to. [para. 47].

Knopp v. Western Bulk Transport Ltd., [1994] C.L.A.D. No. 172, refd to. [para. 48]; agreed with [para. 74].

Chalifoux v. Driftpile First Nation et al., [2000] C.L.A.D. No. 368, affd. on other grounds (2001), 210 F.T.R. 148; 2001 FCT 785, affd. (2002), 299 N.R. 259; 2002 FCA 521, refd to. [para. 48].

Jalbert v. Westcan Bulk Transport Ltd., [1996] C.L.A.D. No. 631, refd to. [para. 48].

Prosper v. PADC Management Co., [2010] C.L.A.D. No. 430, refd to. [para. 48].

Halkowich v. Fairford First Nation, [1998] C.L.A.D. No. 486, refd to. [para. 48].

Daniels v. Whitecap Dakota First Nation, [2008] C.L.A.D. No. 135, refd to. [para. 48].

Klein v. Royal Canadian Mint, [2012] C.L.A.D. No. 358, refd to. [para. 48]; consd. [paras. 96 et seq.].

Paul v. National Centre For First Nations Governance, [2012] C.L.A.D. No. 99, refd to. [para. 48].

Crevier v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 220; 38 N.R. 541; 127 D.L.R. (3d) 1, refd to. [para. 51].

Taub v. Investment Dealers Association of Canada et al. (2009), 255 O.A.C. 126; 98 O.R.(3d) 169; 2009 ONCA 628, refd to. [para. 52].

Consolidated-Bathurst Packaging Ltd. v. International Woodworkers of America, Local 2-69 et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 282; 105 N.R. 161; 38 O.A.C. 321; 68 D.L.R.(4th) 524, refd to. [para. 53].

Da Huang v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2014), 464 N.R. 112; 245 A.C.W.S.(3d) 846; 2014 FCA 228, refd to. [para. 58].

Abraham et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2012), 440 N.R. 201; 2012 FCA 266, refd to. [para. 58].

Keays v. Honda Canada Inc., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 362; 376 N.R. 196; 239 O.A.C. 299; 2008 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 63].

Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 701; 219 N.R. 161; 123 Man.R.(2d) 1; 159 W.A.C. 1; 152 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 63].

Rawluk v. Rawluk, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 70; 103 N.R. 321; 38 O.A.C. 81; 65 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 65].

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. of Canada v. Eaton (T.) Co., [1956] S.C.R. 610; 4 D.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 65].

Gendron v. Supply and Services Union of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Local 50057 et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1298; 109 N.R. 321; 66 Man.R.(2d) 81, dist. [para. 66].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1; 154 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 75].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 75].

Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. v. Sheikholeslami, [1998] 3 F.C. 349; 223 N.R. 231; 157 D.L.R.(4th) 689 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 88].

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Boisvert, [1986] 2 F.C. 431; 68 N.R. 355 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 90].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, sect. 240 [para. 3].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Christie, Innis, et al., Employment Law in Canada (2nd Ed. 1993), pp. 668 [para. 69]; 669 [paras. 47, 77]; 670 [para. 78]; 712 [parra. 69].

Crane, Peter, Theory and Values in Public Law, in Craig, Paul, and Rawlings, Richard, eds., Law and Administration in Europe: Essays for Carol Harlow (2003), generally [para. 30].

Daly, Paul, Administrative Law: A Values-Based Approach, in Elliott, Mark and Varuhas, Jason, eds., Process and Substance in Public law Adjudication (2015), generally [para. 30].

Harris, David, Wrongful Dismissal (1990, looseleaf), pp. 6.7 to 6.9 [para. 47].

Simmons, Gordon, Unjust Dismissal of the Unorganized Workers in Canada, 20 Stan. J. Intl. Law 473 (1984), pp. 496 to 497 [para. 48].

Counsel:

James A. LeNoury, for the appellant;

Ronald M. Snyder, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

LeNoury Law, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Fogler, Rubinoff LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on May 13, 2014, by Stratas, Webb and Near, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. In reasons written by Stratas, J.A., the Court delivered the following judgment, dated January 22, 2015, at Ottawa, Ontario.