Chan et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2010) 372 F.T.R. 230 (FC)

• Judge: Gauthier, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 02, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2010), 372 F.T.R. 230 (FC);2010 FC 708

Chan v. Can. (A.G.) (2010), 372 F.T.R. 230 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.004

Hanson Chan, Dianne Christine Farkas, David Charles Freeborn, Glen Kawaguchi, Danial Maehara, Thomas Mahon, William Gerald Martin, and Michal Stefan Walnicki (applicants) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-1352-09; 2010 FC 708)

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

Federal Court

Gauthier, J.

June 29, 2010.

Summary:

The Public Service Labour Relations Board allowed the applicants' grievances in part. The Board allowed the first grievance, holding that scheduling the applicants to work on both Christmas and New Year's Day was contrary to the collective agreement. The Board dismissed the second grievance on the ground that the employer did not violate the collective agreement when he amended the schedule and advised the applicants not to report for work on one of these two days and had no obligation to schedule one of these designated paid holidays as a day of rest. The applicants applied for judicial review of the dismissal of the second grievance.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Labour Law - Topic 9550

Public service labour relations - Collective agreement - Vacation and holidays - Holidays - Assignment of days for - The Public Service Labour Relations Board allowed the applicants' grievances in part - The Board allowed the first grievance, holding that scheduling the applicants to work on both Christmas and New Year's Day was contrary to the collective agreement - The Board dismissed the second grievance on the ground that the employer did not violate the collective agreement when he amended the schedule and advised the applicants not to report for work on one of these two days and had no obligation to schedule one of these designated paid holidays as a day of rest - The applicants applied for judicial review of the dismissal of the second grievance - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The court applied the standard of review of reasonableness and found that the applicants had not established that the Board made a reviewable error when it concluded that clause 30.06 of the collective agreement, which indicated that an employee would not be scheduled to work on a designated paid holiday, did not transform that holiday into a day of rest, nor did it create an obligation for the employer to account for it in the 56-day schedule as a day of rest - The conclusion reached by the Board was one of the possible and acceptable outcomes on the facts and the law.

Cases Noticed:

Guérin v. House of Commons, [1994] C.P.S.S.R.B. No. 55, refd to. [para. 8, footnote 5].

Nitschmann et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board) (2009), 394 N.R. 126; 2009 FCA 263, refd to. [para. 15].

Clarkson v. Treasury Board, 2009 PSLRB 87, refd to. [para. 15].

Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2005), 343 N.R. 334; 2005 FCA 366, refd to. [para. 17].

Currie et al. v. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2005] F.T.R. Uned. A08; 139 A.C.W.S.(3d) 869; 2005 FC 733, revd. [2007] 1 F.C.R. 471; 350 N.R. 252; 2006 FCA 194, refd to. [para. 17].

Nitschmann et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 858; 171 A.C.W.S.(3d) 123; 2008 FC 1194, varied (2009), 394 N.R. 126; 2009 FCA 263, refd to. [para. 17].

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. 17].

Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada (Treasury Board), [1987] 2 F.C. 471; 72 N.R. 241 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 28, footnote 21].

Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada (Treasury Board), [1987] F.C.J. No. 240 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 28, footnote 21].

Public Service Alliance of Canada et al. v. Canadian Grain Commission and Canada (Treasury Board) et al. (1986), 5 F.T.R. 51 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 28].

Peck v. Parks Canada (2009), 359 F.T.R. 136; 2009 FC 686, refd to. [para. 28].

Brescia et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board) et al. (2005), 337 N.R. 154; 255 D.L.R.(4th) 334; 2005 FCA 236, refd to. [para. 28].

Shaw v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency, [2009] C.P.S.L.R.B. No.  63; 2009 PSLRB 63, refd to. [para. 28].

Toomey and Treasury Board (Transport Canada), Re, [1992] C.P.S.S.R.B. No. 57, refd to. [para. 29, footnote 22].

Counsel:

Andrew Raven, for the applicants;

Richard Faden, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck, LLP/s.r.l., for the applicants;

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

This application was heard on June 2, 2010, at Ottawa, Ontario, by Gauthier, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment on June 29, 2010.