Association of Justice Counsel v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FCA 56

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: Stratas, Ryer and de Montigny, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Citation: 2016 FCA 56,(2016), 481 N.R. 113 (FCA)
• Date: 17 February 2016

Justice Counsel Assoc. v. Can. (A.G.) (2016), 481 N.R. 113 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] N.R. TBEd. MR.013

Association of Justice Counsel (applicant) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(A-379-15; A-380-15; 2016 FCA 56)

Indexed As: Association of Justice Counsel v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court of Appeal

Stratas, Ryer and de Montigny, JJ.A.

February 18, 2016.

Summary:

The Association of Justice Counsel, on behalf of the Law Group bargaining unit, was party to a collective agreement with the Treasury Board of Canada (the employer). The Association filed a policy grievance against the employer alleging a violation of the collective agreement. The adjudicator dismissed the grievance (the February 4, 2015 order). The Association took the position that the order was inconsistent with the adjudicator's reasons which reflected the employer's concession on one issue in favour of the employees represented by the Association. The Association requested that the adjudicator correct his order. The adjudicator declined to do so on the basis that he was functus officio (the March 3, 2015 decision). The Association commenced two applications for judicial review. In the first application, the Association asserted that the February 4, 2015 order did not accord with the reasons that the adjudicator gave for the order. The Association requested that the order be set aside and the matter remitted to the adjudicator to make a new order that accorded with his reasons. In the second application, the Association requested that the March 3, 2015 decision be set aside, asserting that the adjudicator could have, and should have, amended the order.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed both applications. The court quashed the February 4, 2015 order and the March 3, 2015 decision. The court remitted the matter of the February 4, 2015 order to the adjudicator for the sole purpose of issuing a new order that accurately reflected his reasons for decisions. For reasons of procedural fairness, the court directed that the adjudicator receive submissions from the parties regarding the wording of the new order.

Administrative Law - Topic 554

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Finality (functus officio) - Power of tribunal to amend or reopen decision - The Association of Justice Counsel filed a policy grievance against the Treasury Board (the employer), alleging a violation of the collective agreement - The adjudicator dismissed the grievance (the February 4 order) - The Association took the position that the order was inconsistent with the adjudicator's reasons which reflected the employer's concession on one issue in favour of the employees represented by the Association - The Association requested that the adjudicator correct his order - The adjudicator declined to do so on the basis that he was functus officio (the March 3 decision) - The Association applied for judicial review of the February 4 order and the March 3 decision - The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the applications - From the record, it was clear that the employer conceded something on one issue in favour of the employees - By dismissing the grievance, the February 4 order effectively stated that all aspects of the grievance had no merit - Given the concession, that was not the case - The employer submitted that this was just a minor issue that could be overlooked - It added that the order did not have to set out a ruling on every single aspect of the grievance and the reasons were clear - The court disagreed - The order's wording was an important matter - Under s. 234 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the terms of the order were enforced, not the supporting reasons - The decision in Chandler v. Alberta Association of Architects (1989, SCC) held that an administrative decision maker could reopen an order if it did not express the decision maker's manifest intention - Having accepted the employer's concession, the adjudicator's manifest intention must have been to uphold part of the grievance in the Association's favour - The February 4 order failed to expressed that intention.

Administrative Law - Topic 3208

Judicial review - General - Whether tribunal's reasons may be referred to in determining scope of tribunal's order - [See Administrative Law - Topic 554 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 8938

Boards and tribunals - Powers - To vary own order - [See Administrative Law - Topic 554 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9126

Public service labour relations - Adjudication of grievances - Powers of adjudicators or boards - [See Administrative Law - Topic 554 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9127

Public service labour relations - Adjudication of grievances - Loss of powers of adjudicators or boards - [See Administrative Law - Topic 554 ].

Cases Noticed:

Chandler v. Alberta Association of Architects, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 848; 99 N.R. 277; 101 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 17].

Counsel:

Christopher Rootham, for the applicant;

Christine Langill, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

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

This appeal was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on February 17, 2016, by Stratas, Ryer and de Montigny, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. Stratas, J.A., delivered the following reasons for judgment for the court on February 18, 2016.