Gatien v. Canada (Attorney General), (2016) 479 N.R. 382 (FCA)

• Judge: Noël, C.J., Scott and Gleason, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: December 09, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2016), 479 N.R. 382 (FCA);2016 FCA 3

Gatien v. Can. (A.G.) (2016), 479 N.R. 382 (FCA)

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: [2016] N.R. TBEd. JA.013

Attorney General of Canada (appellant) v. Gisèle Gatien (respondent)

(A-237-15; 2016 FCA 3; 2016 CAF 3)

Indexed As: Gatien v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court of Appeal

Noël, C.J., Scott and Gleason, JJ.A.

January 6, 2016.

Summary:

Gatien was a manager in the federal public service who was physically assaulted by one of her employees (AB). AB was removed from the workplace and transferred to a different department. When Gatien was informed that AB would be returning to the workplace to collect her personal belongings, she barricaded the office so that AB could not enter. Gatien received a 10 day suspension as discipline. She filed a grievance, seeking damages for mental distress. The Public Service Labour Relations Board denied Gatien's request for damages, but reduced the 10 day suspension to an oral reprimand and ordered the employer to immediately reimburse Gatien for lost wages and benefits. Gatien applied for judicial review of the Board's refusal to award damages for mental distress.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported at (2015), 479 F.T.R. 218, allowed the application and remitted the matter to the same Board for redetermination. The Attorney General appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the application for judicial review.

Damages - Topic 905

Aggravation - General - Aggravated damages - Claim for - [See Labour Law - Topic 9165 ].

Damages - Topic 1532

General damages - Elements of general damages - Mental distress or emotional upset - [See Labour Law - Topic 9165 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9165

Public service labour relations - Discipline and dismissal of civil or public servants - Remedies for wrongful dismissal or suspension - Gatien, a manager in the federal public service, was physically assaulted by an employee (AB) who had been extremely difficult for several months - AB was transferred to a different department - Gatien was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder - When Gatien was informed that AB would be returning to the workplace to collect her personal belongings, she barricaded the office so that AB could not enter - The employer disciplined Gatien by imposing a 10 day suspension - Gatien grieved, seeking damages for mental distress - A Public Service Labour Relations Board adjudicator reduced the 10 day suspension to an oral reprimand and ordered the employer to immediately reimburse Gatien for lost wages and benefits, but refused to award damages for mental distress - Gatien's application for judicial review was allowed - The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the Attorney General's appeal - The adjudicator's decision was reasonable - He did not require that there be independently actionable conduct as a prerequisite to an award of damages for bad faith employer conduct - He focussed on the nature of the employer's conduct and contrasted it with the type of conduct that had been found to give rise to bad faith damages - The employer's conduct was far less objectionable than those cases where bad faith damages were awarded - There was a rational basis for the adjudicator to conclude that the employer was unaware of Gatien's mental health condition when it imposed discipline - See paragraphs 42 to 50.

Labour Law - Topic 9353

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - Decisions of adjudicators, arbitrators, grievance appeal boards or officers - Scope of review (incl. standard) - Gatien, a federal civil servant, received a 10 day suspension as discipline from her employer - Gatien grieved, seeking damages for mental distress - A Public Service Labour Relations Board adjudicator refused to award damages for mental distress - Gatien applied for judicial review - The application judge, applying the correctness standard of review to the adjudicator's decision, allowed the application - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the application judge erred in selecting the correctness standard of review - The determination of when damages could be awarded for the bad faith conduct of an employer was a matter that fell within the specialized expertise of labour adjudicators - It was not a matter of general importance to the legal system as a whole - The application judge should have applied the reasonableness standard of review - See paragraphs 31 to 41.

Cases Noticed:

Vorvis v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1085; 94 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 12].

Pate v. Galway-Cavendish (Township) et al. (2013), 312 O.A.C. 244; 117 O.R.(3d) 481; 2013 ONCA 669, refd to. [para. 12].

Keays v. Honda Canada Inc., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 362; 376 N.R. 196; 239 O.A.C. 299; 2008 SCC 39, consd. [para. 13].

Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 701; 219 N.R. 161; 123 Man.R.(2d) 1; 159 W.A.C. 1, consd. [para. 16].

Agraira v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al., [2013] 2 S.C.R. 559; 446 N.R. 65; 2013 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 30].

MacFarlane v. Day & Ross Inc. et al. (2014), 466 N.R. 53; 2014 FCA 199, refd to. [para. 30].

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. 32].

Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals v. Nor-Man Regional Health Authority Inc., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 616; 423 N.R. 95; 275 Man.R.(2d) 16; 538 W.A.C. 16; 2011 SCC 59, refd to. [para. 33].

Viterra Inc. v. Grain Services Union et al. (2013), 423 Sask.R. 97; 588 W.A.C. 97; 2013 CarswellSask 617; 2013 SKCA 93, refd to. [para. 35].

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 59 v. Saskatoon (City) (2014), 433 Sask.R. 134; 602 W.A.C. 134; 2014 CarswellSask 59; 2014 SKCA 14, refd to. [para. 35].

United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1400 v. Real Canadian Superstores et al. (2012), 393 Sask.R. 317; 546 W.A.C. 317; 2012 SKCA 66, refd to. [para. 35].

United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1400 v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. et al. (2012), 409 Sask.R. 9; 568 W.A.C. 9; 2012 CarswellSask 851; 2012 SKCA 131, refd to. [para. 35].

Syndicat des travailleuses et travailleurs de ADF-CSN v. Syndicat des employés de Au Dragon Forgé Inc., 2013 CarswellQue 4147; 2013 QCCA 793, refd to. [para. 36].

New Brunswick v. Pinder et al. (2012), 391 N.B.R.(2d) 110; 1013 A.P.R. 110; 2012 CarswellNB 405; 2012 NBCA 60, refd to. [para. 37].

EllisDon Corp. v. Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers' Conference et al. (2014), 327 O.A.C. 113; 2014 CarswellOnt 15975; 2014 ONCA 801, refd to. [para. 38].

Heustis v. New Brunswick Electric Power Commission, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 768; 27 N.R. 103; 25 N.B.R.(2d) 613; 51 A.P.R. 613, refd to. [para. 39].

Royal Oak Mines Inc. v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 369; 193 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 39].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471; 422 N.R. 248; 2011 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 40].

Halfacree v. Canada (Attorney General), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 135; 2014 FC 360, affd. [2015] N.R. Uned. 58; 2015 FCA 98, refd to. [para. 48].

Riche v. Treasury Board (Department of National Defence), 2013 PSLRB 35, refd to. [para. 48].

Crowley v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1429, refd to. [para. 48].

Counsel:

Martin Desmeules, for the appellant;

Paul Champ and Bijon Roy, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Champ & Associates, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on December 9, 2015, before Noël, C.J., Scott and Gleason, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. Gleason, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court on January 6, 2016.