Chamberlain v. Canada (Attorney General)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: Gleason, J.
• Date: 16 May 2012
• Citation: (2012), 417 F.T.R. 225 (FC),2012 FC 1027
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)

Chamberlain v. Can. (A.G.) (2012), 417 F.T.R. 225 (FC)

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: [2012] F.T.R. TBEd. SE.003

Zabia Chamberlain (applicant) v. The Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-56-11; 2012 FC 1027; 2012 CF 1027)

Indexed As: Chamberlain v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

Gleason, J.

August 31, 2012.

Summary:

Chamberlain, a federal government employee filed a grievance and four Canada Labour Code complaints, respecting how she was treated in the workplace. The grievance included, inter alia, human rights complaints (Canadian Human Rights Act). A Public Service Labour Relations Board (PSLRB) adjudicator (Filliter) ruled that the grievance raised no adjudicable issues. Filliter, acting as PSLRB Vice-Chairperson, also held that only portions of the Code-based complaints were adjudicable. The employee applied for judicial review. Jurisdictionally, the review was divided between the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported (2012), 428 N.R. 211, dismissed the application, respecting the Code-based complaints. The judicial review respecting the adjudicator's ruling on the adjudicability of the grievances proceeded.

The Federal Court allowed the judicial review application in part. The court set aside the adjudicator's order dismissing the grievance and remitted the matter for determination of whether a PSLRB adjudicator had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon Chamberlain's human rights claims, and if so, to hear and decide those claims on their merits. Otherwise the adjudicator's ruling on adjudicability was reasonable and not disturbed.

Courts - Topic 123

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - Courts of superior jurisdiction - Decisions binding on Federal Court of Canada - [See second Estoppel - Topic 386 ].

Courts - Topic 2015

Jurisdiction - General principles - Controlling abuse of its process (incl. abuse of process through litigation by installment) - [See second Estoppel - Topic 386 ].

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings - Issue estoppel - The Federal Court stated that "The principle of issue estoppel, a branch of the broader doctrine of res judicata, exists to prevent collateral attacks of decisions. In order for issue estoppel to apply, three elements are required: first, the same parties (or their privies) must be involved in the two cases; second, a final decision must have been made in the earlier case; and third, the same question must have been decided in the earlier case ... Where these three elements are present, the issue cannot be re-litigated" - See paragraph 22.

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings - Issue estoppel - A federal government employee filed a grievance and four Canada Labour Code complaints - A Public Service Labour Relations Board (PSLRB) adjudicator (Filliter) ruled that the grievance raised no adjudicable issues - Filliter, acting as PSLRB Vice-Chairperson, also held that only portions of the Code-based complaints were adjudicable - The employee applied for judicial review, alleging bias and breaches of procedural fairness - Jurisdictionally, the review was divided between the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal - The Federal Court of Appeal rejected the bias and breach of procedural fairness allegations and dismissed the application respecting Code-based complaints - The Federal Court held that the doctrine of issue estoppel applied to the application respecting the grievances - Further, the doctrine of stare decisis prevented re-litigation of the bias and procedural fairness issues - Abuse of process was not applicable where issue estoppel pertained - See paragraphs 5 to 8 and 20 to 25.

Labour Law - Topic 437

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Boards - Jurisdiction - Canada Public Service Labour Relations Board - [See both Labour Law - Topic 9353 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9102

Public service labour relations - Grievances - Matters referable to adjudication - [See both Labour Law - Topic 9353 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9128

Public service labour relations - Adjudication of grievances - Jurisdiction of adjudicators or boards - [See both Labour Law - Topic 9353 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9353

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - Decisions of adjudicators, arbitrators, grievance appeal boards or officers - Scope of review (incl. standard) - A federal government employee grieved, raising claims under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) (e.g., discrimination and failure to accommodate) - A Public Service Labour Relations Board (PSLRB) adjudicator ruled that the grievance did not raise adjudicable issues - The employee applied for judicial review, arguing that the adjudicator failed to address whether her human rights claims were adjudicable - The Federal Court held that no deference was to be afforded to the adjudicator's decision in this regard and it was for the court to determine whether he failed to address an issue that was raised in the grievance - The court held that the adjudicator erred in not addressing whether the CHRA allegations were adjudicable - That court stated that it was not saying that the human rights claims were in fact adjudicable - That was a determination for the adjudicator - See paragraphs 27 and 47 and 69 to 83.

Labour Law - Topic 9353

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - Decisions of adjudicators, arbitrators, grievance appeal boards or officers - Scope of review (incl. standard) - An employee grieved respecting how she was treated by her department - A Public Service Labour Relations Board (PSLRB) adjudicator ruled that the grievance did not raise any adjudicable issues - The employee applied for judicial review, arguing that the adjudicator erred in finding that the grievance was not related to a disciplinary action resulting in demotion or financial penalty within the meaning of s. 209(1)(b) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act - The Federal Court held that the standard of review of the PSLRB's determination of arbitrability under s. 209(1)(b) was reasonableness, and here the adjudicator's decision was reasonable - See paragraphs 9, 11 and 28 to 68.

Cases Noticed:

Beirnes v. Canada (Treasury Board) (1993), 67 F.T.R. 226; 4 W.D.C.P.(2d) 555 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

Chamberlain v. Canada (Attorney General) (2012), 428 N.R. 211; 2012 FCA 44, refd to. [para. 7].

Ochapowace First Nation et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2008), 316 F.T.R. 19; 2007 FC 920, refd to. [para. 17].

Slaeman et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2012), 412 F.T.R. 103; 2012 FC 641, refd to. [para. 17].

Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291; 2003 SCC 63, refd to. [para. 21].

Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 460; 272 N.R. 1; 149 O.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 22].

Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) v. Human Rights Tribunal (B.C.) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 422; 421 N.R. 338; 311 B.C.A.C. 1; 529 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 23].

Commissioner of Competition v. Superior Propane Inc. et al. (2003), 300 N.R. 104; 2003 FCA 53, refd to. [para. 25].

Turner v. Canada (Attorney General) (2012), 431 N.R. 327; 2012 FCA 159, refd to. [para. 27].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Amos (2011), 417 N.R. 74; 330 D.L.R.(4th) 603; 2011 FCA 38, refd to. [para. 29].

Lindsay v. Canada (Attorney General) (2010), 369 F.T.R. 64; 2010 FC 389, refd to. [para. 29].

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. 29].

Marin v. Canada (Treasury Board) (2007), 320 F.T.R. 119; 2007 FC 1250, refd to. [para. 31].

Chadwick v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 249 F.T.R. 293; 2004 FC 503, refd to. [para. 31].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Marinos, [2000] 4 F.C. 98; 254 N.R. 152; 186 D.L.R.(4th) 517 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Kagimbi v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 311; 2011 FC 527, refd to. [para. 32].

Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canadian Federal Pilots Association et al., [2010] 3 F.C.R. 219; 392 N.R. 128; 2009 FCA 223, refd to. [para. 32].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Service Alliance of Canada (2011), 423 N.R. 284; 343 D.L.R.(4th) 156; 2011 FCA 257, refd to. [para. 32].

Rhéaume v. Canada (Attorney General) (2010), 415 N.R. 47; 2010 FCA 355, refd to. [para. 34].

Syndicat des débardeurs du Port de Québec v. Société des arrimeurs de Québec inc. et al. (2011), 419 N.R. 226; 2011 FCA 17, refd to. [para. 38].

Irving (J.D.) Ltd. v. General Longshore Workers, Checkers and Shipliners of the Port of Saint John, N.B., Local 273 et al., [2003] 4 F.C. 1080; 305 N.R. 344; 2003 FCA 266, refd to. [para. 38].

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Corp., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 227; 26 N.R. 341; 25 N.B.R.(2d) 237; 51 A.P.R. 237, refd to. [para. 42].

Nolan et al. v. Superintendent of Financial Services (Ont.) et al., [2009] 2 S.C.R. 678; 391 N.R. 234; 253 O.A.C. 256; 2009 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 43].

Nolan v. Kerry (Canada) Inc. - see Nolan et al. v. Superintendent of Financial Services.

Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Smith, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 160; 412 N.R. 66; 2011 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 43].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471; 422 N.R. 248; 2011 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 43].

Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat.

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654; 529 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 424 N.R. 70; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 44].

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Seneca College of Applied Arts & Technology et al. (2006), 212 O.A.C. 131; 80 O.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Alberta v. Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (2008), 433 A.R. 159; 429 W.A.C. 159; 2008 ABCA 258, refd to. [para. 45].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Frazee (2007), 319 F.T.R. 192; 2007 FC 1176, refd to. [para. 56].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Basra (2008), 327 F.T.R. 30; 2008 FC 606, refd to. [para. 56].

Kelly v. Canada (Treasury Board - Department of Transport), 2010 P.S.L.R.B. 80, refd to. [para. 60].

Robitaille v. Canada (Deputy Head - Department of Transport), 2010 P.S.L.R.B. 70, refd to. [para. 60].

LaBranche v. Canada (Treasury Board - Department of Foreign Affairs & International Trade), 2010 P.S.L.R.B. 65, refd to. [para. 60].

Leclair v. Canada (Treasury Board - Correctional Service), 2010 P.S.L.R.B. 49, refd to. [para. 60].

Hanna v. Deputy Head (Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), 2009 P.S.L.R.B. 94, refd to. [para. 60].

Gill v. Canada (Treasury Board - Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, 2009 P.S.L.R.B. 19, refd to. [para. 60].

Lloyd v. Canada (Revenue Agency, 2009 P.S.L.R.B. 15, refd to. [para. 60].

Giroux v. Canada (Treasury Board - Border Services Agency, 2009 P.S.L.R.B. 45, refd to. [para. 60].

Gaskin v. Canada Revenue Agency, 2008 P.S.L.R.B. 96, refd to. [para. 60].

Stevenson v. Canada Revenue Agency, 2009 P.S.L.R.B. 89, refd to. [para. 60].

Giroux v. Canada (Treasury Board - Border Services Agency), 2008 P.S.L.R.B. 102, refd to. [para. 60].

Vallée v. Treasury Board (Royal Canadian Mounted Police), 2007 P.S.L.R.B. 52, refd to. [para. 60].

Boivin v. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, 2003 P.S.S.R.B. 94, refd to. [para. 60].

Thibault v. Canada (Treasury Board - Correctional Service), 1996 P.S.S.R.B. 166-2-26613, refd to. [para. 60].

Robertson v. Treasury Board (Department of National Defence), 1971 P.S.S.R.B. 166-2-454, refd to. [para. 60].

Wong v. Canada Revenue Agency, [2006] C.P.S.L.R.B. No. 133; 2006 P.S.L.R.B. 133, refd to. [para. 60].

McGill University Health Centre (Montreal General Hospital) v. Syndicat des employés de l'Hôpital général de Montréal et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 161; 356 N.R. 177; 2007 SCC 4, refd to [para. 71].

Ottawa (City) v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al. (2005), 341 N.R. 201; 2005 FCA 311, refd to. [para. 71].

Desormeaux v. Ottawa (City) - see Ottawa (City) v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al.

Social Services Administration Board (Parry Sound District) v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 324 et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 157; 308 N.R. 271; 177 O.A.C. 235; 2003 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 76].

House of Commons et al. v. Vaid et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 667; 333 N.R. 314; 2005 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 77].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321; 125 D.L.R.(4th) 583, refd to. [para. 78].

Gibson v. Canada (Treasury Board - Department of Health), 2008 P.S.L.R.B. 68, refd to. [para. 79].

Lovell v. Canada (Revenue Agency), 2010 P.S.L.R.B. 91, refd to. [para. 80].

Wong v. Canadian Security Intelligence Service, 2010 P.S.L.R.B. 18, refd to. [para. 81].

Peters v. Canada (Attorney General), [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 253; 2009 FC 400, refd to. [para. 82].

Miguel v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2004), 245 F.T.R. 273; 2004 FC 94, refd to. [para. 82].

Van de Wetering v. Canada (Attorney General) (2003), 233 F.T.R. 229; 2003 FCT 588, refd to. [para. 82].

Statutes Noticed:

Public Service Labour Relations Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, sect. 208, sect. 209 [para. 30]; sect. 233 [para. 36].

Counsel:

Zabia Chamberlain, on her own behalf;

Caroline Engmann and Josh Alcock, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Myles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on May 16, 2012, before Gleason, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on August 31, 2012.