Beothuk Data Systems Ltd., Seawatch Division v. Dean et al., (1997) 218 N.R. 321 (FCA)

• Judge: Isaac, C.J., Stone and McDonald, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: August 28, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1997), 218 N.R. 321 (FCA)

Beothuk Data Systems Ltd. v. Dean (1997), 218 N.R. 321 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1997] N.R. TBEd. SE.009

Douglas Dean (appellant) v. Beothuk Data Systems Limited, Seawatch Division (respondent) and Ted A. Blanchard, an adjudicator appointed pursuant to the provisions of the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, Part III, Division XIV (respondent)

(A-757-95)

Hugh Davis (appellant) v. Beothuk Data Systems Limited, Seawatch Division (respondent) and Ted A. Blanchard, an adjudicator appointed pursuant to the provisions of the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, Part III, Division XIV (respondent)

(A-758-95)

Michael Carew (appellant) v. Beothuk Data Systems Limited, Seawatch Division (respondent) and Ted A. Blanchard, an adjudicator appointed pursuant to the provisions of the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, Part III, Division XIV (respondent)

(A-759-95)

Indexed As: Beothuk Data Systems Ltd., Seawatch Division v. Dean et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Isaac, C.J., Stone and McDonald, JJ.A.

August 28, 1997.

Summary:

Three employees worked as River Guard­ians on a continuous seasonal basis for more than 10 years (10-12 weeks a year). Each year they were "laid off" with an unknown recall date. The employees were not recalled. They filed a complaint of unjust dismissal under the Labour Code. An adjudicator ruled that he had jurisdiction, because the employees were employed in a federal work, undertaking or business and they had 12 consecutive months of continuous employ­ment as required by s. 240(1) of the Labour Code. The adjudicator ruled that they were unjustly dismissed and ordered that they be reinstated. The employer applied under ss. 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Court Act for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a judgment reported 102 F.T.R. 241, allowed the application and set aside the adjudicator's decision. The adjudicator was correct in find­ing that the employees were employed in a federal work, undertaking or business, but erred in finding that they had 12 consecutive months of continuous em­ployment under s. 240(1). Accordingly, the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to hear the com­plaints. The employees appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, McDonald, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal and restored the adjudicator's decision.

Labour Law - Topic 6023

Industrial relations - Complaints - Con­secutive period of continuous employment - Three employees worked on a continu­ous seasonal basis as River Guardians for over 10 years - They worked 10-12 weeks per year, were then "laid off" with an "unknown" recall date and spent the rest of the year receiving unemployment insurance benefits and doing temporary work - The employees filed a complaint of unjust dismissal - Section 240(1) of the Canada Labour Code required completion of "twelve consecutive months of continu­ous employment" - The trial judge held that the adju­dicator erred in finding the employees had 12 consecutive months of continuous employment, stating that "con­tinuity of an ongoing employment may be unaf­fected by a yearly layoff of a de minimus duration", but a right of recall and long established pattern of temporary seasonal employment did not meet the 12 month require­ment - The Federal Court of Appeal restored the adjudicator's decision - Section 240(1) required "continu­ous employment", not continuous "work" - The adjudicator did not err in finding a continuous employ­ment relationship not­withstanding the lengthy yearly layoffs - See paragraphs 27 to 51.

Labour Law - Topic 6045

Industrial relations - Complaints - Adju­dicators - Jurisdiction - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that "notwithstanding the curial defer­ence owed to tribunals pro­tected by a privative clause, an interpreta­tion by a tribunal of a statutory provi­sion which confers jurisdiction upon it, or which limits the scope of its jurisdiction, is to be reviewed on a correctness standard" - See para­graph 27.

Statutes - Topic 1803

Interpretation - Intrinsic aids - Bilingual statutes - Interpretation of both versions - A person could file an unjust dismissal complaint under the Canada Labour Code if, inter alia, he had 12 months of "con­tinuous employment" - The French version of the Code required 12 months of con­tinuous "work" - The shared meaning rule provided that where two versions of a bilingual statute did not say the same thing, the shared meaning was to be adopted unless this meaning was unac­ceptable - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the more restrictive French meaning did not govern where the more inclusive English version (employment, not work) more accurately reflected the true legislative intention of Parlia­ment - Re­quiring 12 months of con­tinuous active work would exclude all seasonal employees from the benefits of the Code, which was contrary to Parliament's inten­tion - See paragraphs 29 to 42.

Cases Noticed:

Canada Post Corp. v. Pollard (1993), 161 N.R. 66 (F.C.A.), appld. [para. 19, foot­note 10].

Dominion Canners Ltd. v. Costanza, [1923] S.C.R. 46, refd to. [para. 19, foot­note 11].

Essex County Council v. Essex Incorporated Congregational Church Union, [1963] A.C. 808 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 19, foot­note 11].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. and Canadian National Railway Co. v. Cana­dian Transport Commission, [1988] 2 F.C. 437; 13 F.T.R. 52 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 19, foot­note 11].

Norway House Indian Band v. Bass and Duncan et al., [1994] 3 F.C. 376; 75 F.T.R. 246 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 19, foot­note 11].

Byers Transport Ltd. v. Kosanovich and Mellors, [1995] 3 F.C. 354; 185 N.R. 107 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20, footnote 13].

Pioneer Grain Co. v. Kraus, [1981] 2 F.C. 815; 36 N.R. 395 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 21, footnote 15].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Syndicat des employés de production du Québec et de l'Acadie, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 412; 55 N.R. 321; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 457, refd to. [para. 27, foot­note 20].

Syndicat national des employés de la Commission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244, refd to. [para. 27, footnote 20].

U.E.S., local 298 v. Bibeault - see Union des employés de service.

Union des employés de service, local 298 v. Bibeault - see Syndicat national des employés de la Commission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).

Bibeault - see Syndicat national des employés de la Commission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).

Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 941; 150 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 27, footnote 20].

Paccar of Canada Ltd. v. Canadian Asso­ciation of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers, Local 14, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 983; 102 N.R. 1; 62 D.L.R.(4th) 437; 89 C.L.L.C. 14,050; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 673; 40 Admin. L.R. 181, refd to. [para. 27, footnote 20].

Juster v. Minister of National Revenue (1974), 5 N.R. 219; 49 D.L.R.(3d) 256 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 26].

Food Machinery Corp. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, [1946] 2 D.L.R. 258 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 26].

Canada v. Dubois, [1935] S.C.R. 378, refd to. [para. 32, footnote 26].

R. v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 411; 1 N.R. 299, refd to. [para. 32, footnote 26].

Compagnie Immobilière BCN Ltée v. Minister of National Revenue, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 865; 25 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 32, footnote 26].

Reigate Rural District Council v. Sutton District Water Co. (1908), 99 L.T. 168, refd to. [para. 34, footnote 31].

Reference Re Educational System in Island of Montreal, [1926] S.C.R. 246, refd to. [para. 34, footnote 31].

Hirsch v. Protestant Board of School Commissioners - see Reference Re Educational System in Island of Montreal.

Ottawa (City) v. Canada Atlantic Railway Co. (1903), 33 S.C.R. 376, refd to. [para. 34, footnote 31].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Hallet & Carey Ltd., [1952] A.C. 427 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 31].

Nokes v. Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd., [1940] A.C. 1014, refd to. [para. 34, footnote 31].

Abrahams v. Canada (Attorney Gen­eral), [1983] 1 S.C.R. 2; 46 N.R. 185, refd to. [para. 34, footnote 33].

R. v. Popovic and Askov, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 308; 7 N.R. 231, refd to. [para. 44, foot­note 40].

Laberge v. Charbonneau (1920), 30 B.R. 385 (Que. K.B.), refd to. [para. 44, foot­note 40].

Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5; 122 N.R. 361; 47 O.A.C. 271, refd to. [para. 65].

Da­vidson v. Slaight Communi­cations Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183, refd to. [para. 78].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, sect. 167(1) [para. 13, footnote 7]; sect. 240(1) [para. 14]; sect. 242(3.1) [para. 18, footnote 9]; sect. 243(1) [para. 20, footnote 12].

Canada Labour Code Regulations (Can.), Canada Labour Standard Regulations, C.R.C. 1978, c. 986, sect. 29 [para. 23, footnote 19].

Canada Labour Standard Regulations - see Canada Labour Code Regula­tions (Can.).

Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, sect. 5(1) [para. 2, footnote 2].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, sect. 45(2), sect. 45(3) [para. 50, foot­note 44].

Statute Revision Act, S.C. 1974-75-76, c. 20, sect. 6(e), sect. 6(f) [para. 43, footnote 39].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Christie, Innis, England, Geoffrey, and Cotter, W. Brent, Employment Law in Canada (2nd Ed. 1993), p. 672 [para. 38, footnote 36, para. 83].

Côté, Pierre-André, Interpreta­tion of Legislation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1991), p. 276 [para. 31, foot­note 25].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construc­tion of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 171 [para. 32, footnote 26].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construc­tion of Statutes (3rd Ed. 1994), p. 220 [para. 29, footnote 21].

England, G., Recent Developments in Wrongful Dismissal and Some Pointers for Reform (1978), 16 Alta. L.R. 470, generally [para. 33, footnote 29].

England, G., Unjust Dismissal in the Federal Jurisdiction: The First Three Years (1982), 12 Man. L.J. 9, p. 10 [para. 33, footnote 30].

Grossman, M. Norman, Federal Employ­ment Law in Canada (1990), p. 91 [para. 35, foot­note 34].

Munro, John C., A Better Deal for Canada's Unorganized Workers (August 19, 1977), The Labour Gazette 347, generally [para. 33, footnote 30].

Counsel:

Mark Kennedy, for the appellants;

Mark Murray, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

French, Browne, St. John's, Nfld., for the appellants;

Martin, Whalen, Hennebury & Stamp, St. John's, Nfld., for the respon­dent.

These appeals were heard on July 4, 1997, at St. John's, Nfld., before Isaac, C.J., Stone and McDonald, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

On August 28, 1997, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Isaac, C.J. (Stone, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 51;

McDonald, J.A., dissenting - see para­graphs 52 to 118.