RNC Média Inc. v. Côté, 2015 FC 439

• Judge: Gagné, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 18, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2015 FC 439;(2015), 476 F.T.R. 165 (FC)

RNC Média Inc. v. Côté (2015), 476 F.T.R. 165 (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: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.040

RNC Média Inc. (applicant) v. Denis Côté (respondent)

(T-1606-14; 2015 CF 439; 2015 FC 439)

Indexed As: RNC Média Inc. v. Côté

Federal Court

Gagné, J.

April 9, 2015.

Summary:

Côté was dismissed from his employment as a sales representative. An adjudicator appointed under the Canada Labour Code allowed Côté's unjust dismissal complaint and confirmed his right to be reinstated. The employer applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 351

The hearing and decision - Nature or extent of the hearing - Opportunity to cross-examine - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2491 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 510

The hearing and decision - Procedure - Severance - [See Labour Law - Topic 6045 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 555

Hearing and decision - Decisions of tribunal - Severability - [See Labour Law - Topic 6045 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2088

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (considerations incl. bias) - Bias - Apprehension of - [See Labour Law - Topic 6046 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2100.1

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (considerations incl. bias) - Evidence and proof - [See Labour Law - Topic 6046 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2491

Natural justice - Procedure - At hearing - Cross-examination - Côté filed an unjust dismissal complaint - At the hearing, the employer called Côté as a witness when making its case - The adjudicator held that the employer could not ask Côté leading questions or criticize him - The adjudicator allowed the complaint - The employer applied for judicial review, arguing that the adjudicator breached procedural fairness by limiting its right to cross-examine Côté - The Federal Court dismissed the application - It was difficult to see how counsel for the employer could examine Côté effectively and encourage the discovery of facts relevant to the complaint if counsel did not have some latitude and could not ask questions in such a way as to suggest the desired answer - However, this argument had little impact on the case at hand given that (i) the adjudicator did in fact give the employer some latitude in allowing him to put leading questions to Côté provided that the questions were relevant; (ii) counsel for Côté decided to have Côté testify as part of his case, such that counsel for the employer had the opportunity to cross-examine him and no limitations were imposed; and (iii) the purpose of the cross-examination was to show that Côté's employment was terminated because of an attitude problem, but this was not what had motivated the employer to terminate his employment - See paragraphs 16 to 23.

Administrative Law - Topic 2611

Natural justice - Evidence and proof - Witnesses - Cross-examination of - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2491 ].

Labour Law - Topic 6045

Industrial relations - Complaints - Adjudicators - Jurisdiction - An adjudicator allowed Côté's unjust dismissal complaint and confirmed his right to be reinstated - The employer applied for judicial review, arguing that the adjudicator exceeded his jurisdiction in deciding that Côté was entitled to be reinstated because he had severed the proceeding and stated that he would confine himself to determining whether the dismissal was unjust - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The adjudicator could rule on Côté's right to be reinstated while reserving his jurisdiction with regard to the terms of the reinstatement and with regard to any other order that he was allowed to make under s. 242(4) of the Canada Labour Code - See paragraphs 30 to 33.

Labour Law - Topic 6046

Industrial relations - Complaints - Adjudicators - Bias - An adjudicator allowed Côté's unjust dismissal complaint - The employer applied for judicial review, arguing that the adjudicator's behaviour raised a reasonable apprehension of bias - The Federal Court dismissed the application - It was perilous to find a breach of procedural fairness on the basis of contradictory affidavits, which was the only evidence before the court on this issue - If the court had to choose one version of the facts over another, it would have chosen Côté's version since it was more consistent with the adjudicator's observations, particularly regarding the attitude of counsel for the employer toward Côté - See paragraphs 25 to 28.

Master and Servant - Topic 8343

Employment and labour standards - Jurisdiction and powers of director, tribunal, referees or officers - Procedure - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2491 and Labour Law - Topic 6045 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 8349

Employment and labour standards - Jurisdiction and powers of director, tribunal, referees or officers - Unjust dismissal - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2491 and Labour Law - Topic 6045 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 8585

Employment and labour standards - Practice - Natural justice - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2491 ].

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 11].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2009), 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 11].

B.R.E.S.T. Transportation Ltd. v. Noon, [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 351; 2009 FC 630, refd to. [para. 12].

Powell (C.B.) Ltd. v. Canada Border Services Agency (President) et al. (2010), 400 N.R. 367; 2010 FCA 61, refd to. [para. 15].

Royal Canadian Mint and Public Service Alliance of Canada, Re (1978), 20 L.A.C.(2d) 127 (Ont. Lab. Arb.), refd to. [para. 17].

National Bank of Canada v. Paitich, 2011 CanLII 89184 (Can. Lab. Arb.), refd to. [para. 17].

Imperial Oil Ltd. et al. v. Alberta (Minister of Environment) et al. (2003), 338 A.R. 1; 2003 ABQB 388, refd to. [para. 22].

Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board (1978), 9 N.R. 115 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Gravel v. Telus Communications Inc., [2012] N.R. Uned. 53; 2012 FCA 43, refd to. [para. 27].

Counsel:

René Dion, for the applicant;

David Gervais and Ronald Sirard, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

René Dion, Quebec, Quebec, for the applicant;

Picard Sirard Poitras, Quebec, Quebec, for the respondent.

This application for judicial review was heard at Quebec, Quebec, on February 18, 2015, before Gagné, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment and reasons at Ottawa, Ontario, on April 9, 2015.