King v. Canada (Attorney General), (2012) 409 F.T.R. 216 (FC)

• Judge: Martineau, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 27, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2012), 409 F.T.R. 216 (FC);2012 FC 488

King v. Can. (A.G.) (2012), 409 F.T.R. 216 (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. MY.025

John King (applicant) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-2171-10; 2012 FC 488; 2012 CF 488)

Indexed As: King v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

Martineau, J.

April 26, 2012.

Summary:

King, a customs inspector, was on leave with pay, being engaged full-time in union matters. He was suspended by the employer for 30 days and then dismissed following postings on the union website that the deputy head viewed as counselling or procuring an illegal work stoppage (Public Service Labour Relations Act, s. 194(1)). King grieved. The adjudicator dismissed the grievance (2010 PSLRB 125). King applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Crown - Topic 1087

Contracts with Crown - Employment contracts - Power to dismiss - [See Labour Law - Topic 9731 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9151

Public service labour relations - Discipline and dismissal of civil servants - Crown prerogative or other authority to discipline or dismiss - [See Labour Law - Topic 9731 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9174.2

Public service labour relations - Discipline and dismissal of civil servants - Discipline - Penalty or punishment - [See Labour Law - Topic 9731 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9353

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - Decisions of adjudicators, arbitrators, grievance appeal boards or officers - Scope of review (incl. standard) - King, a customs inspector, was on leave with pay, being engaged in union activities - He posted two statements on the union website stating, inter alia, that he was pressing the bargaining agent and the national union for support "to walk off the job now", because of a work schedule change - The union was not in a legal strike position - The employer suspended and later dismissed King - King grieved - A Public Service Labour Relations Board adjudicator dismissed the grievances holding that: (1) the deputy head had general authority under the Financial Administration Act to discipline King: (2) the online statements constituted "counselling" or "procuring" an illegal strike (Public Service Labour Relations Act, s. 194(1)); and (3) the discipline was appropriate and reasonable - King applied for judicial review - The Federal Court (Martineau, J.) stated that "With some hesitation I must say, but being legally bound by the most recent indications of the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada, I conclude ... that the reasonableness standard applies to all questions of fact and law decided by the adjudicator" - See paragraphs 58 to 106.

Labour Law - Topic 9731

Public service labour relations - Strikes - Prohibitions relating to strikes (incl. prohibition on counselling or procuring illegal strikes) - King, a customs inspector, was on leave with pay, being engaged in union activities - He posted two statements on the union website stating, inter alia, that he was pressing the bargaining agent and the national union for support "to walk off the job now", because of a work schedule change - The union was not in a legal strike position - The employer suspended and later dismissed King - King grieved - A Public Service Labour Relations Board adjudicator dismissed the grievances holding that: (1) the deputy head had general authority under the Financial Administration Act to discipline King: (2) the online statements constituted "counselling" or "procuring" an illegal strike (Public Service Labour Relations Act (PSLRA), s. 194(1)); and (3) the discipline was appropriate and reasonable - King applied for judicial review - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The adjudicator's findings of fact and law were reasonable - Accordingly, the court had to refrain from substituting its opinion for the adjudicator's, despite the fact that the court had some doubts respecting the correctness of the adjudicator's interpretation of s. 194(1) of the PSLRA - In that respect, the court felt bound to apply the standard of reasonableness in view of the most recent Federal Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence - See paragraphs 107 to 190.

Cases Noticed:

Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada Border Services Agency, 2009 PSLRB 66, refd to. [para. 13].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207; 2003 SCC 20, refd to. [para. 58].

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. 59].

Nitschmann et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 858; 2008 FC 1194, refd to. [para. 72].

Burden et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2011), 385 F.T.R. 139; 2011 FC 251, refd to. [para. 72].

Boudreau v. Canada (Attorney General) (2011), 394 F.T.R. 98; 2011 FC 868, refd to. [para. 72].

Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals v. Nor-Man Regional Health Authority Inc. (2011), 423 N.R. 95; 275 Man.R.(2d) 16; 538 W.A.C. 16; 2011 SCC 59, refd to. [para. 75].

Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Smith, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 160; 412 N.R. 66; 2011 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 76].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al. (2011), 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 77].

Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board v. Stetler, 2003 CanLII 26757 (Ont. Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 78].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Amos (2011), 417 N.R. 74; 2011 FCA 38, refd to. [para. 80].

Ryan v. Canada (Attorney General) (2005), 268 F.T.R. 161; 2005 FC 65, refd to. [para. 83].

Martin et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2005), 334 N.R. 43; 2005 FCA 156, refd to. [para. 86].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 89].

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. 96].

Nitschmann et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 858; 2008 FC 1194, refd to. [para. 100].

Financial Transaction and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) v. Boutziouvis (2011), 400 F.T.R. 9; 2011 FC 1300, refd to. [para. 102].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Tipple (2011), 392 F.T.R. 201; 2011 FC 762, refd to. [para. 102].

Monarch Fine Foods Co. v. Milk and Bread Drivers, Dairy Employees, Caterers and Allied Employees, Local 647, [1986] O.L.R.B. Rep. May 66, refd to. [para. 111].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Tobin (2008), 329 F.T.R. 279; 2008 FC 740, affd. (2009), 393 N.R. 356; 2009 FCA 254, refd to. [para. 115].

Ainscough et al. v. McGavin Toastmaster Ltd., [1976] 1 S.C.R. 718; 4 N.R. 618, refd to. [para. 123].

Brescia et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board) et al. (2005), 337 N.R. 154; 2005 FCA 236, refd to. [para. 125].

Brescia et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board) et al. (2004), 247 F.T.R. 49; 2004 FC 277, refd to. [para. 126].

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. 126].

International Nickel Co. of Canada v. United Steelworkers (1974), 6 L.A.C.(2d) 172, refd to. [para. 129].

Pattison (Jim) Sign Co., Re (2004), 134 L.A.C.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 129].

Bell Canada, Re (1996), 57 L.A.C.(4th) 289, refd to. [para. 129].

Accuride Canada v. Canadian Automobile Workers, Local 27 (1992), 29 L.A.C.(4th) 137, refd to. [para. 129].

Pacific Press Ltd. v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers' Union, Local 115M (1997), 69 L.A.C.(4th) 214, refd to. [para. 130].

R. v. Sharpe (J.R.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45; 264 N.R. 201; 146 B.C.A.C. 161; 239 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 135].

Plaza Fiber Glas Manufacturing Ltd. v. United Steelworkers, [1988] OLAA 62; 33 L.A.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 137].

Canada (Treasury Board) v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2228, [1972] CPSSRB 7; [1972] CRTFPC 7, refd to. [para. 139].

R. v. Hamilton (R.L.), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 432; 336 N.R. 302; 371 A.R. 201; 354 W.A.C. 201; 2005 SCC 47, refd to. [para. 140].

McConnell, Hopkinson, Wilson and Benjamin v. Douglas Aircraft Co. of Canada Ltd. and O'Shea, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 245; 29 N.R. 109, refd to. [para. 146].

Lafrance v. Commercial Photo Service Inc., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 536; 32 N.R. 46, refd to. [para. 146].

F.H. v. McDougall, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 41; 380 N.R. 82; 260 B.C.A.C. 74; 439 W.A.C. 74; 2008 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 148].

Shaw v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development), 2006 PSLRB 125, refd to. [para. 164].

Communication, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada v. Bell Canada, [1996] CLAD 914, refd to. [para. 167].

Natrel Inc. v. Milk and Bread Drivers, Dairy Employees, Caterers and Allied Employees, Local 647 (2005), 136 L.A.C.(4th) 284, refd to. [para. 171].

Manitoba (Department of Justice) v. Manitoba Government and General Employees' Union (2009), 181 L.A.C.(4th) 235, refd to. [para. 173].

Brazeau v. Canada (Minister of Public Works and Government Services), 2008 PSLRB 62, refd to. [para. 184].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al. (2011), 424 N.R. 220; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 186].

Statutes Noticed:

Financial Administration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11, generally [para. 3 et seq.]; sect. 12(1)(c) [para. 119].

Public Service Labour Relations Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, sect. 194(1) [para. 132].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Adams, George W., Canadian Labour Law (2nd Ed. 1993) (2011 Looseleaf Update), vol. 2, para. 12:20 [para. 123].

Brown, Donald J.M., and Beatty, David M., Canadian Labour Arbitration (4th Ed.) (2010 Looseleaf Update), para. 9:1530 [para. 165].

Brown, Donald J.M., and Beatty, David M., Canadian Labour Arbitration (4th Ed.) (2011 Looseleaf Update), paras. 7:3610 [para. 128]; 7:3620 [para. 130].

Perelman, Chaïm, Justice (1967), pp. 94 [para. 92]; 96 [para. 93].

Counsel:

Andrew Raven and Bijon Roy, for the applicant;

Richard Fader, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP/s.r.l., Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

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

This application was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 27, 2012, by Martineau, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on April 26, 2012.