Date: 20100826
Docket: A-214-10
Citation: 2010 FCA 217
Present: SEXTON J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
PROFESSIONAL
INSTITUTE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA
Respondent
Dealt with in writing without appearance
of parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario,
on August 26, 2010.
REASONS
FOR ORDER BY: SEXTON
J.A.
Date: 20100826
Docket: A-214-10
Citation: 2010 FCA 217
Present: SEXTON
J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTE OF THE
PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
SEXTON J.A.
[1]
This is a
motion by the Public Service Alliance of Canada (“PSAC”) for leave to intervene
in this case, which is an application for judicial review of a decision of the
Public Service Labour Relations Board.
[2]
In an earlier
decision, the Public Service Labour Relations Board rendered a decision which
declared that certain members of employee groups represented by the respondent,
Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada performed essential
services (the Public Safety Decision). The Board in a subsequent decision ruled
that it had the authority to order that the description of essential services
described in the Public Safety Decision be included in the essential services
agreement (“ESA”). The Attorney General of Canada seeks judicial review of the
latter decision.
[3]
The Public
Service Alliance of Canada (“PSAC”) seeks to intervene in the application,
arguing that it is directly affected by the present application because the
Board’s decision deals with the Board’s authority to order that its definition
of an essential service be included in an essential services agreement (“ESA”).
PSAC says that it is a party in a number of ongoing cases which raise the same
issue.
[4]
In order to
be granted leave to intervene, it is “incumbent” on PSAC to demonstrate “what
it would bring to the debate over and beyond what was already available to the
Court through the parties”: Canadian Union of Public Employees (Airline Division)
v. Canadian Airlines International (2000), [2010] 1 F.C.R. 226 (C.A.) at
paragraph 12; Sawridge Band v. Canada, 2009 FCA 61 at paragraphs 11-16.
[5]
PSAC
submits that the size and diversity of its membership, and its participation in
previous Public Service Labour Relations Board cases raising similar issues,
give it a “unique perspective.” However, PSAC’s position on the issues is
virtually identical to that of the Institute, and PSAC has not indicated that
its arguments will be substantially different from those of the Institute. See Anderson
v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), 2003 FCA 352. Though PSAC
is correct in noting than an intervener is not required to adduce evidence, an
intervener must add some legal or factual argument in order to assist the
court.
[6]
PSAC has
not shown that there is any reason to believe that the Institute will fail to
adequately advance the arguments which PSAC proposes to make.
[7]
It is
therefore not necessary to deal with the other arguments advanced by the
parties. The motion is dismissed with costs.
"J.
Edgar Sexton"
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-214-10
STYLE OF CAUSE: Attorney
General of Canada v. Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: Sexton J.A.
DATED: August 26, 2010
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
|
Sean F. Kelly
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
Dougald
Brown
Christopher Rootham
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
|
Andrew Raven
Andrew Astritis
|
FOR
THE PROPOSED INTERVENOR, Public
Service Alliance of Canada
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
Nelligan
O'Brien Payne
Ottawa, Ontario
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
|
Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck
LLP/s.r.l.
Ottawa, Ontario
|
FOR
THE PROPOSED INTERVENOR, Public Service Alliance of Canada
|
Email this Content