Smith v. Association canadienne des employés de téléphone et al., (1994) 179 N.R. 101 (FCA)

Judge:The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered from the Bench, at Montreal, Quebec, on December 2, 1994, by Hugessen, J.A.
Court:Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
Case Date:December 02, 1994
Jurisdiction:Canada (Federal)
Citations:(1994), 179 N.R. 101 (FCA)
 
FREE EXCERPT

Smith v. CATE (1994), 179 N.R. 101 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Elvia Rosa Smith, secrétaire, résidant et domiciliée au 14918, rue Highland, Pierrefonds (Québec), H9H 1R3 (requérante) v. Conseil canadien des relations du travail, corps politique légalement constitué, ayant une place d'affaires au 600, de Maisonneuve E., 7ème étage, Montréal (Québec), H3A 3J2 et Bell Canada, corporation légalement constituée ayant une place d'affaires au 1050, Côte-du-Beaver Hall, Bureau 1600, Montréal (Québec), H2Z 1S4 et Association canadienne des employés de téléphone, association sans but lucratif légalement constituée ayant une place d'affaires à la Place du Canada, Bureau 360, Montréal (Québec), H3B 2N2 (intimés)

(A-714-93)

Indexed As: Smith v. Association canadienne des employés de téléphone et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Hugessen and Décary, JJ.A., and Chevalier, D.J.A.

December 2, 1994.

Summary:

A union decided not to pursue two griev­ances filed by an employee against the employer. An internal union appeal against this decision was dismissed. The employee then filed a complaint against the union.

The Canada Labour Relations Board dis­missed the complaint because it was late. The employee sought judicial review.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application.

Labour Law - Topic 6027

Industrial relations - Complaints - Time for filing - On September 11, 1992, Smith was informed that her union decided not to pursue two grievances she had filed - An internal union appeal against this decision was dismissed on November 2, 1992 - On December 28, 1992, Smith filed a com­plaint against her union - The Canada Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint because it had been filed after the 90-day time limit found in s. 97(2) of the Canada Labour Code - Smith sought judicial review and argued that the 90-day time limit began to run on November 2, 1992 - The Federal Court of Appeal dis­missed her application and held that the 90-day delay ran from September 11, 1992, "the date on which the complainant knew, or ... ought to have known, of the action or circumstances giving rise to the complaint".

Cases Noticed:

Tino v. Canadian National Railway Co. (1991), 132 N.R. 46 (F.C.A.), folld. [para. 5].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Labour Code - see Labour Code.

Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, sect. 37, sect. 97(2) [para. 1].

Counsel:

Alain Béliveau, for the applicant;

Véronique Dubois and Louise Cadieux, for Association canadienne des employés de téléphone.

Solicitors of Record:

Alain Béliveau, Westmount, Quebec, for the applicant;

Canada Labour Relations Board, Ottawa, Ontario, for the Canada Labour Relations Board;

Bell Canada Legal Service, Montreal, Quebec, for Bell Canada;

Langlois, Robert, Montreal, Quebec, for Association canadienne des employés de téléphone.

This appeal was heard at Montreal, Que­bec, on December 2, 1994, by Hugessen and Décary, JJ.A, and Chevalier, D.J.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered from the Bench, at Montreal, Quebec, on December 2, 1994, by Hugessen, J.A.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP