Date: 20130516
Docket:
A-148-12
Citation: 2013
FCA 131
CORAM: BLAIS C.J.
NOËL J.A.
NEAR J.A.
BETWEEN:
JOHN
KING
Appellant
and
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Heard
at Ottawa, Ontario, on May
15, 2013.
Judgment
delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 16, 2013.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: NEAR
J.A.
CONCURRED
IN BY: BLAIS
C.J.
NOËL
J.A.
Date:
20130516
Docket:
A-148-12
Citation: 2013 FCA 131
CORAM: BLAIS
C.J.
NOËL
J.A.
NEAR
J.A.
BETWEEN:
JOHN
KING
Appellant
and
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT
NEAR
J.A.
[1]
This
is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Court wherein Martineau J. (the
Federal Court judge) found reasonable the decision of adjudicator Ian R.
Mackenzie (the adjudicator) of the Public Service Labour Relations Board
denying two grievances filed by John King (the appellant). The adjudicator
concluded that the appellant's employer had just cause to impose a 30-day
suspension followed by a termination of employment. In his reasons,
the adjudicator found that the appellant engaged in serious misconduct by
counseling or procuring an illegal work stoppage in contravention of subsection
194(1) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, S.C. 2003, c.
22 (the PSLRA).
[2]
The
appellant was employed by the Canada Border Services Agency as a Border
Services Officer in the position's varying iterations from 1989 until his
termination on November 20, 2007. Since 1996, he was on paid union leave,
serving most of this time as President of Local 24 of the Customs and Excise Union
Douanes Accise.
[3]
Although
the appellant took a different position before the Federal Court judge, he now
recognizes that the standard of review applicable to the Federal Court judge's
assessment of the decision of the adjudicator is reasonableness. Applying this
standard, the appellant contends that the adjudicator misconstrued subsection
194(1) of the PSLRA, disregarding provincial labour jurisprudence, the
quasi-criminal nature of the provision, and the "expanding scope of
legitimate union activity and expression reflected in recent labour relations
and Charter jurisprudence" (appellant's memorandum at paragraph 51). In
his view, all of these factors require a higher threshold for what constitutes
"counselling or procuring" and, more particularly, that there be an
intention on the part of the appellant that an illegal strike be committed for
the purposes of subsection 194(1). (appellant's memorandum at paragraphs 53 and
58). The appellant adds in the alternative that the quantum of discipline
awarded for his conduct was unreasonable and should be reduced accordingly.
[4]
I
am unable to agree. These arguments were fully canvassed by the Federal Court
judge and, like him, I am of the view that the decision of the adjudicator
meets the criteria with respect to justification, transparency and
intelligibility and is well within the range of possible and acceptable
outcomes which are defensible in respect of these facts and law (Dunsmuir v.
New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 at paragraph 47). The appellant asks this Court
to reweigh the evidence before the adjudicator and arrive at a different
conclusion. The appellant's disagreement with the outcome does not establish
that the decision is unreasonable.
[5]
I
would thus dismiss the appeal with costs.
“D.G.
Near”
“I
agree
Pierre Blais C.J.”
“I
agree
Marc Noël J.A.”
FEDERAL COURT OF
APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-148-12
APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE MARTINEAU DATED APRIL 26, 2012, NO. T-2171-10
STYLE OF CAUSE: John
King v. Attorney General of Canada
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: May 15, 2013
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BY: Near J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: Blais C.J.
Noël J.A.
DATED: May 16, 2013
APPEARANCES:
Andrew Raven
|
FOR
THE APPELLANT
|
Richard Fader
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck
LLP/s.r.l.
Ottawa, Ontario
|
FOR
THE APPELLANT
|
William F. Pentney
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|