Canada (At­torney General) v. Viola et al., (1990) 123 N.R. 83 (FCA)

• Judge: Pratte, MacGuigan and Décary, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: October 25, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1990), 123 N.R. 83 (FCA)

Can. (A.G.) v. Viola (1990), 123 N.R. 83 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Attorney General of Canada (ap­plicant) v. Lise Viola, residing and domiciled at 45 rue Corbeil, Saint-Anne-des-Plaines, Province of Quebec (respondent) and Claudine Brosseau (mise-en-cause) and Marie-Claude Bastien (mise-en-cause)

(A-312-89)

Indexed As: Canada (At­torney General) v. Viola et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Pratte, MacGuigan and

Décary, JJ.A.

November 23, 1990.

Summary:

Viola was rejected as a candidate for a federal government job because she failed to meet the language requirements. She appealed.

An Appeal Board set up under the Public Service Employment Act allowed her appeal. The Attorney General of Canada applied under s. 28 of the Federal Court Act to quash the decision of the Appeal Board.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the application, set aside the decision of the Appeal Board and referred the matter to the Board for consideration on the assumption that the Board lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the validity or legality of the language requirements set by the department for the job.

Labour Law - Topic 9178

Public service labour relations - Job com­petitions - Language qualifications - The Federal Court of Appeal discussed how the 1988 Official Languages Act should be interpreted and applied - See paragraphs 15 to 17.

Labour Law - Topic 9178

Public service labour relations - Job com­petitions - Language qualifications - A federal government job candidate was rejected because she did not meet the language requirements for the job as set by the department involved - An Appeal Board set up under s. 21 of the Public Service Employment Act held that the language requirements were established in an arbitrary and improper manner contrary to the provisions of the Official Languages Act - The Federal Court of Appeal dis­cussed the jurisdiction of the Board and held that the Board exceeded its jurisdic­tion in seeking to determine whether the language requirements were justified or were established arbitrarily and improperly.

Labour Law - Topic 9193.1

Public service labour relations - Job com­petitions - Appeals - Jurisdiction of Appeal Board - A federal government job candidate was rejected because she did not meet the language requirements for the job as set by the department involved - An Appeal Board set up under s. 21 of the Public Service Employment Act held that the language requirements were established in an arbitrary and improper manner con­trary to the provisions of the Official Languages Act - The Federal Court of Appeal discussed the jurisdiction of the Board and held that the Board exceeded its jurisdiction in seeking to determine whether the language requirements were justified or were established arbitrarily and improperly.

Statutes - Topic 504

Interpretation - Quasi-constitutional stat­utes (e.g., Official Languages Act) - The Federal Court of Appeal discussed how the 1988 Official Languages Act should be interpreted and applied - See paragraphs 15 to 17.

Cases Noticed:

Bauer, Re, [1973] F.C. 626; 6 N.R. 183 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 2].

Demers v. Attorney General of Canada, [1974] 1 F.C. 270; 2 N.R. 89 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 2].

Brown et al. v. Public Service Commis­sion, [1975] F.C. 345; 9 N.R. 493 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 2].

Irwin v. Public Service Commission Appeal Board, [1979] 1 F.C. 356, refd to. [para. 9, footnote 2].

Ricketts v. Department of Transport (1983), 52 N.R. 381 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 2].

Guy v. Public Service Commission Appeal Board, [1984] 2 F.C. 369; 55 N.R. 105 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 2].

Bauer v. Public Service Appeal Board - see Bauer, Re.

Kelso v. Canada, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 199; 35 N.R. 19, refd to. [paras. 10, 22, footnote 3].

Gariépy v. Federal Court of Canada (Ad­ministrator) et al. (1987), 14 F.T.R. 58, refd to. [paras. 10, 22, footnote 4].

Delanoy v. Public Service Commission Appeal Board, [1977] 1 F.C. 562; 13 N.R. 341 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 13, foot­note 5].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,023; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [para. 16, footnote 6].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 16, footnote 6].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 32 M.V.R. 153, refd to. [para. 16, foot­note 6].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 69 B.C.L.R. 145; 36 M.V.R. 240; 18 C.R.R. 30; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536, refd to. [para. 16, footnote 6].

Brennan v. Canada and Robichaud, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 84; 75 N.R. 116, refd to. [para. 16, footnote 7].

Ontario Human Rights Commission and O'Malley v. Simpsons-Sears, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536; 64 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 16, footnote 7].

Action travail des Femmes v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1114; 76 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 16, footnote 7].

Scowby et al. v. Glendinning et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 226; 70 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 16, footnote 7]

Singh et al. v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 16, footnote 7].

Craton v. Winnipeg School Division No. 1 et al., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 150; 61 N.R. 241; 38 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 16, footnote 7].

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia v. Heerspink and Director, Human Rights Code, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 145; 43 N.R. 168, refd to. [para. 16, footnote 7].

Société des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick Inc. et al. v. Minority Lan­guage School Board No. 50 and As­sociation of Parents for Fairness in Edu­cation, Grand Falls District No. 50 Branch, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 549; 66 N.R. 173; 69 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 177 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 16, footnote 8].

Robichaud v. Canada (Treasury Board) - see Brennan v. Canada and Robichaud.

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Cana­dian Human Rights Commission - see Action travail des femmes v. Canadian National Railway Co.

R. v. Smith (M.H.), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 102 N.R. 205; 63 Man.R.(2d) 81, refd to. [para. 17, footnote 9].

Vincer v. Canada (Attorney General), [1988] 1 F.C. 714; 82 N.R. 352 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 9].

Goodyear Tire-Rubber Co. of Canada v. T. Eaton Co., [1956] S.C.R. 610, refd to. [para. 21, footnote 10].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 16(1), sect. 16(3) [paras. 8, 16].

Official Languages Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. O-3, sect. 40 [paras. 11, 19]; sect. 40(4) [para. 8].

Official Languages Act, S.C. 1988, c. 38, preamble [paras. 8, 16, 18]; sect. 2 [para. 16]; sect. 2(a) [para. 8]; sect. 21 [paras. 8, 20]; sect. 22 [para. 8]; sect. 34 [paras. 8, 20]; sect. 35 [para. 19]; sect. 35(1), sect. 39 [para. 8]; sect. 39(2) [para. 19]; sect. 39(3) [para. 18]; sect. 58(1), sect. 76 [para. 8]; sect. 77(1) [paras. 8, 19]; sect. 77(4) [para. 8]; sect. 77(5) [paras. 8, 22]; sect. 78 [para. 8]; sect. 78(3) [para. 22]; sect. 82(1) [paras. 8, 16]; sect. 82(2) [para. 8]; sect. 91 [paras. 8, 18, 19].

Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-33, sect. 6(1) [paras. 8, 12]; sect. 10 [para. 8]; sect. 12(1) [paras. 8, 12]; sect. 17 [para. 1]; sect. 20 [paras. 8, 12]; sect. 21 [paras. 1, 5, 8, 9].

Counsel:

Jean-Marc Aubry and Alain Préfontaine, for the applicant;

Dianne Nicholas, for the respondent;

Peter B. Annis and Richard Tardif, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

Soloway, Wright, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent;

Scott & Aylen, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor.

This appeal was heard in Ottawa, Ontario, on October 25, 1990, before Pratte, MacGuigan and Décary, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered on November 23, 1990, by Décary, J.A.: