Saisu Technologies Inc. et al. v. Thelander et al., 2004 SKQB 427

• Judge: Foley, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: November 03, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2004 SKQB 427;(2004), 266 Sask.R. 82 (QB)

Saisu Tech. Inc. v. Thelander (2004), 266 Sask.R. 82 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] Sask.R. TBEd. DE.040

In The Matter Of an appeal under s. 62.3(1) of the Labour Standards Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. L-1, as amended.

Saisu Technologies Incorporated, E.S. Chandrasekaran, James B. Engdahl, William Hunter McKnight, G.V. Shankar and Sabitha Shankar (appellants/respondents) v. John Thelander, Rahul Menon and Sivaramakrishna Sitaraman (respondent/complainants) and Director of Labour Standards (respondent)

(2004 Q.B.G. No. 1236; 2004 SKQB 427)

Indexed As: Saisu Technologies Inc. et al. v. Thelander et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Foley, J.

November 3, 2004.

Summary:

The appellants appealed against a wage assessment decision made by an adjudicator under the Labour Standards Act (Sask.). Two preliminary issues were raised: (1) whether an apparent hiatus in the adjudicator's de jure authority was fatal to all or part of his decision; and (2) whether the appeal was brought within the statutory appeal period.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench ruled that the apparent hiatus was not fatal to all or part of the adjudicator's decision and that the appeal was brought within the statutory appeal period.

Administrative Law - Topic 6108

Judicial review - Statutory appeal - Commencement of time in which to appeal or apply for leave to appeal - [See Master and Servant - Topic 8357 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 8341

Employment and labour standards - Jurisdiction and powers of director, tribunal, referees or officers - General - An adjudicator's authority to hear wage assessment appeals under the Labour Standards Act (Sask.) expired on February 28, 2004 - On March 2 and 3, 2004, the adjudicator heard an appeal that had been filed "in late 2003" - On March 21, 2004, the adjudicator made an interim decision - On March 30, 2004, the adjudicator's authority was restored - The adjudicator then made a final decision, which was appealed on July 23, 2004 - At issue was whether the three-week hiatus in the adjudicator's de jure authority was fatal to all or part of his decision - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that it was not - The court applied the doctrine of de facto authority to validate the adjudicator's actions - See paragraphs 5 to 8.

Master and Servant - Topic 8357

Employment and labour standards - Jurisdiction and powers of director, tribunal, referees or officers - Appeals (incl. leave to appeal) - Section 62.3(1) of the Labour Standards Act (Sask.) provided that an appeal against an adjudicator's decision had to be made within 21 days "after the date of the decision" - June 24, 2004, was the date endorsed on the reasons for the adjudicator's decision in this case - The decision was filed on July 5, 2004 - On July 23, 2004, a notice of appeal against the adjudicator's decision "dated July 5, 2004" was filed - At issue was whether the appeal was on time - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that it was - The date of the decision here was July 5, 2004 - That date was stamped on the adjudicator's decision and used by the appellants in their notice of appeal to describe the date of the adjudicator's decision and the date of service - See paragraphs 9 to 18.

Cases Noticed:

Manitoba Language Rights Reference (1985), 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man.R.(2d) 83; 19 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

Reference Re Language Rights Under the Manitoba Act, 1870 - see Manitoba Language Rights Reference.

Lewis v. Burnaby School District No. 41 (1992), 71 B.C.L.R.(2d) 183 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

Beauval Trucking and Construction Ltd. et al. v. Laprise et al., [1997] 9 W.W.R. 52; 157 Sask. 303 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 9].

Farmers of North America Inc. et al. v. Langridge et al. (2004), 260 Sask.R. 37 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 9].

Shell Canada Resources v. Turner et al. (1989), 75 Sask.R. 150 (C.A.), consd. [para. 13].

Vidéotron ltée et al. v. Netstar Communications Inc et al. (2003), 300 N.R. 174; 2003 FCA 56, consd. [para. 14].

Statutes Noticed:

Labour Standards Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. L-1, sect. 62(1), sect. 62(5), sect. 62.1(1), sect. 62.1(4), sect. 62.2(1), sect. 62.2(3), sect. 62.3(1), sect. 62.3(2) [para. 4].

Counsel:

A.E. Hardy, for the appellants, Saisu Technologies Incorporated et al.;

S.A.C. Carson, for the respondent, Director of Labour Standards.

Foley, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, heard this application, and delivered the following decision on November 3, 2004.