Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 279 et al., (1983) 1 O.A.C. 177 (CA)

• Judge: Lacourcière, Arnup and Cory, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: November 02, 1983
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1983), 1 O.A.C. 177 (CA)

OCTC v. ATU (1983), 1 O.A.C. 177 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 279, Bolestridge, Jolicoeur, David, Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1502, Mooney, Lafond, Gagnon, Wallace, and Canada Labour Relations Board

Indexed As: Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 279 et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Lacourcière, Arnup and Cory, JJ.A.

December 20, 1983.

Summary:

The Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission operated a public bus system in the Ottawa-Hull area. The Canada Labour Relations Board determined that it had jurisdiction respecting employees of the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission. The employer applied for judicial review.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the application and found that the Canada Labour Relations Board had jurisdiction because the bus system was an interprovincial undertaking. The employer appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6642

Federal jurisdiction - Interprovincial works and undertakings, transportation - The Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission operated a public bus system which serviced Ottawa, Ontario and Hull, Quebec - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the bus system was an interprovincial undertaking (under s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act 1867) notwithstanding that the interprovincial traffic was a small percentage of the total operations of the bus system (see paragraph 25) - The court stated that the test was whether the interprovincial traffic was continuous and regular - See paragraph 35.

Cases Noticed:

Montcalm Construction Inc. v. Minimum Wage Commission et al., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 754; 25 N.R. 1; 93 D.L.R.(3d) 641, refd to. [para. 4].

Re Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 279 et al., 144 D.L.R.(3d) 581, refd to. [para. 7].

Attorney General for Ontario et al. v. Winner et al., [1954] A.C. 541 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

Regina v. Toronto Magistrates; Ex Parte Tank Truck Transport Ltd., [1960] O.R. 497, affd. [1963] 1 O.R. 272, refd to. [para. 26].

Regina v. Cooksville Magistrate's Court; Ex parte Liquid Cargo Lines Ltd., [1965] 1 O.R. 84, refd to. [para. 26].

Montcalm Construction, supra, Northern Telecom Ltd. v. Communications Workers of Canada et al., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 115; 28 N.R. 107; 98 D.L.R.(3d) 1, dist. [para. 27].

Northern Telecom Canada Ltd. et al. v. Communications Workers of Canada et al. (1983), 48 N.R. 161, 147 D.L.R.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), dist. [paras. 27, 44].

Regina v. Manitoba Labour Board; Ex parte Invictus Ltd. (1967), 65 D.L.R.(2d) 517, refd to. [para. 34].

Re Windsor Airline Limousine Services Ltd. and Ontario Taxi Association 1688 (1980), 30 O.R.(2d) 732, not folld. [para. 36].

Northern Telecom Ltd. v. Communications Workers of Canada et al., 28 N.R. 107; 98 D.L.R.(3d) 1, dist. [para. 43].

Statutes Noticed:

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(13) [para. 4]; sect. 91(29), sect. 92(10) [para. 6].

Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. L-1, sect. 2, sect. 108 [para. 5].

Counsel:

G.J. Smith, Q.C. and J.G. Richards, for the appellant;

W.T. Langley, for the respondent, Independent Canadian Transit Union et al.;

A. O'Brien, for the respondent, Amalgamated Transit Union et al.;

Ian Scott, Q.C., for the respondent, Canada Labour Relations Board;

Graham Garton, for the intervenant, Attorney General for Canada.

This appeal was heard by Lacourciere, Arnup and Cory, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal on November 2, 1983. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Cory, J.A., on December 20, 1983.