Canada (Procureur général) v. Alliance de la Fonction publique du Canada, (1989) 97 N.R. 116 (FCA)

• Judge: Pratte, Marceau and Hugessen, JJ.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: January 17, 1989
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1989), 97 N.R. 116 (FCA)

Can. (P.g.) v. PSAC (1989), 97 N.R. 116 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Sa Majesté la Reine, représentée par le Procureur général du Canada (requérante) v. Alliance de la Fonction publique du Canada (intimée) et Econosult Inc. (mis-en-cause)

(A-355-88)

Indexed As: Canada (Procureur général) v. Alliance de la Fonction publique du Canada

Federal Court of Appeal

Pratte, Marceau and Hugessen, JJ.

January 17, 1989.

Summary:

The Solicitor General of Canada offered educational programs to penitentiary inmates. Initially, the teachers were public servants represented by the Public Service Alliance of Canada (P.S.A.C.). Since 1985 the federal government contracted with private firms to supply teachers to a Quebec penitentiary. The P.S.A.C. applied under s. 33 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act for a finding that the teachers were public servants. The Public Service Staff Relations Board found the teachers to be public servants. The Attorney General applied under s. 28 of the Federal Court Act to set aside the decision.

The Federal Court of Appeal, Hugessen, J., dissenting, allowed the application. The court held that the teachers were private sector employees, not public servants. The court stated that it was not the function of the Board to determine who was a public servant.

Labour Law - Topic 9025

Public service labour relations - Definitions - Public servant - The Solicitor General offered educational programs to penitentiary inmates - Initially, the teachers were public servants represented by the Public Service Alliance of Canada (P.S.A.C.) - Since 1985 the federal government contracted with private firms to supply teachers to a Quebec penitentiary - The Federal Court of Appeal set aside a decision of the Public Service Staff Relations Board that the teachers were public servants - The court held that the teachers were private sector employees.

Labour Law - Topic 9053

Public service labour relations - The board - Jurisdiction - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that "it is not the function of the Public Service Staff Relations Board to determine who is an employee of the public service ... Its authority applies only to public servants recognized as such by the provisions of legislation other than its enabling statute and by authority of a body other than itself".

Cases Noticed:

Canada (Attorney General) v. Brault, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 489; 81 N.R. 61, dist. [para. 19].

Doré v. Canada, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 503; 81 N.R. 77, dist. [para. 19].

Syndicat général du Cinéma et de la Télévision v. National Film Board and Public Service Staff Relations Board, [1978] 1 F.C. 346; 16 N.R. 387, refd to. [para. 29].

Seafarers' International Union of Canada v. Kent Line Limited, [1972] F.C. 773, refd to. [para. 35].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, sect. 28.

Financial Administration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11.

Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, sect. 6 [para. 13].

Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-33.

Public Service Staff Relations Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. P-35, sect. 33, sect. 98 [para. 8].

Public Service Staff Relations Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-35, sect. 34, sect. 99 [para. 8, footnote 1].

Counsel:

Raymond Piché and Linda Gobeil, for the applicant;

Diane Nicholas, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

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

Soloway, Wright, Houston, Greenberg, O'Grady, Morin, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent;

André Girouard, Econosult Inc., Montréal, Quebec, for the mis-en-cause;

Legal Services of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, for the Public Service Staff Relations Board.

This application was heard on November 25, 1988, at Montréal, Québec, before Pratte, Marceau and Hugessen, JJ., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

On January 17, 1989, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Marceau, J. (Pratte, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 24;

Hugessen, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 25 to 41.