Vancouver International Airport Authority et al. v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, (2010) 403 N.R. 363 (FCA)

• Judge: Létourneau, Pelletier and Stratas, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: June 02, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2010), 403 N.R. 363 (FCA);2010 FCA 158

Vancouver Airport Authority v. PSAC (2010), 403 N.R. 363 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] N.R. TBEd. JN.045

Vancouver International Airport Authority and YVR Project Management Ltd. (applicants) v. Public Service Alliance of Canada (respondent)

(A-277-09; A-318-09; 2010 FCA 158)

Indexed As: Vancouver International Airport Authority et al. v. Public Service Alliance of Canada

Federal Court of Appeal

Létourneau, Pelletier and Stratas, JJ.A.

June 10, 2010.

Summary:

At issue was whether certain new job positions created by the employer fell within the bargaining unit represented by the union. The Canada Industrial Relations Board ruled on 66 positions, including 23 of the 66 in the bargaining unit. The employer sought judicial review.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the application. The decision was quashed and the matter was remitted to the board for reconsideration.

Administrative Law - Topic 549

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Reasons for decisions - Sufficiency of - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that where an administrative decision-maker, acting under a procedural duty to receive and consider full submissions, was adjudicating on a matter of significance, the adequacy of that decision-maker's reasons had to be evaluated with four fundamental purposes in mind - First, the "substantive purpose", meaning that, at least in a minimal way, the substance of the decision had to be understood along with why the decision-maker ruled in the way that it did - Second, the "procedural purpose", meaning that the parties had to be able to decide whether or not to invoke their rights to judicial review - Third, the "accountability purpose" - There had to be enough information about the decision and its bases so that the supervising court could assess, meaningfully, whether the decision-maker met minimum standards of legality - Fourth, the "justification, transparency and intelligibility purpose" - Justification and intelligibility were present when a basis for a decision had been given and was understandable with some discernable rationality and logic - Transparency spoke to the ability of observers to scrutinize and understand what an administrative decision-maker had decided and why - The reasons of administrative decision-makers had to fulfil these purposes at a minimum - As courts assessed whether these purposes had been fulfilled, there were a number of important principles to be considered - These included the following: the relevance of extraneous material; that the adequacy of reasons was "not measured by the pound"; the relevance of Parliamentary intention and the administrative context; and judicial restraint - See paragraphs 11 to 18.

Administrative Law - Topic 549

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Reasons for decisions - Sufficiency of - At issue was whether certain new job positions created by the employer fell within the bargaining unit represented by the union - The Canada Industrial Relations Board ruled on 66 positions, including 23 of the 66 in the bargaining unit - The employer sought judicial review - The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the application - The board's reasons were inadequate - In 13 of the 23 positions, the board simply wrote that "there is no basis to exclude given the job duties," "there is no basis in the information supplied to exclude the position from the unit," or "job duties do not require exclusion" - These reasons lacked the required transparency, justification and intelligibility - On these reasons, the court was unable to conduct any meaningful supervisory role - In 6 of the 23 positions, the board indicated that the position was included in the bargaining unit because it was "at the same level on the organizational chart" or because it was similar, for some undisclosed reason, to a position in the bargaining unit - However, there was no indication regarding what it was about the level on the organization chart or particular position that led to this conclusion - For the remaining four positions, the board did provide a sentence or two identifying the bases for the inclusion - But the bases identified seemed to conflict with the bases provided for exclusion of other positions - This raised intelligibility concerns - There was nothing in the evidentiary record that helped to supply a rationale for the board's decision - The decision was quashed and the matter was remitted to the board for reconsideration - There was no need for a differently-constituted panel as there were no concerns about the capacity, capability, fairness or propriety of the original panel - See paragraphs 19 to 32.

Administrative Law - Topic 2155

Natural justice - Administrative decisions or findings - Effect of failure of tribunal or official to give reasons for decisions (incl. sufficiency of reasons) - [See second Administrative Law - Topic 549 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2157

Natural justice - Administrative decisions or findings - Purpose of requirement of reasons for decisions - [See first Administrative Law - Topic 549 ].

Labour Law - Topic 830

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Procedure - Decision - General (incl. sufficiency of) - [See second Administrative Law - Topic 549 ].

Cases Noticed:

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 7].

Knight v. Board of Education of Indian Head School Division No. 19, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 653; 106 N.R. 17; 83 Sask.R. 81, refd to. [para. 7].

Sketchley v. Canada (Attorney General), [2006] 3 F.C.R. 392; 344 N.R. 257; 263 D.L.R.(4th) 113; 2005 FCA 404, refd to. [para. 9].

Via Rail Canada Inc. v. National Transportation Agency et al., [2001] 2 F.C. 25; 261 N.R. 184 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Sheppard (C.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Braich (A.) et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 903; 285 N.R. 162; 164 B.C.A.C. 1; 268 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. R.E.M., [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3; 380 N.R. 47; 260 B.C.A.C. 40; 439 W.A.C. 40, refd to. [para. 11].

Canadian Association of Broadcasters v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada et al. (2006), 354 N.R. 310; 54 C.P.R.(4th) 15; 2006 FCA 337, refd to. [para. 11].

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, refd to. [para. 13].

Lake v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 761; 373 N.R. 339; 236 O.A.C. 371, refd to. [para. 13].

Crevier v. Quebec (Attorney General) and Aubry; Crevier v. Quebec (Attorney General), Cofsky and Alberta (Attorney General), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 220; 38 N.R. 541, refd to. [para. 16].

Hill et al. v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board et al., [2007] 3 S.C.R. 129; 368 N.R. 1; 230 O.A.C. 260, refd to. [para. 17].

Clifford v. Ontario (Attorney General) et al. (2009), 256 O.A.C. 354; 98 O.R.(3d) 210 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Saskatchewan, Ombudsman Saskatchewan, Practice Essentials for Administrative Tribunals (2009), online: http:// www.ombudsman.sk.ca/uploads/document/ files/omb-tribunal- guide_web-en-1.pdf, generally [para. 18].

Counsel:

Paul Fairweather, for the applicants;

Edith Bramwell, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Harris & Company LLP, Vancouver, B.C., for the applicants;

Public Service Alliance of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on June 2, 2010, by Létourneau, Pelletier and Stratas, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. On June 10, 2010, Stratas, J.A., delivered the following reasons for judgment for the court.