Date:
20070911
Docket: A-290-06
Citation: 2007 FCA 279
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
PAMELA SACHS, CANADIAN UNION
OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES,
AIRLINE DIVISION, AIR CANADA COMPONENT, OCCUPATIONAL
HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE OF LOCAL 4004
(TORONTO)
Appellants
and
AIR CANADA
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on September 11,
2007.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on September 11, 2007.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW
J.A.
Date: 20070911
Docket: A-290-06
Citation: 2007 FCA 279
CORAM: DÉCARY
J.A.
SEXTON
J.A.
SHARLOW
J.A.
BETWEEN:
PAMELA SACHS, CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES,
AIRLINE DIVISION, AIR CANADA COMPONENT, OCCUPATIONAL
HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE OF LOCAL 4004
(TORONTO)
Appellants
and
AIR CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT
(Delivered
from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario,
on September 11, 2007)
SHARLOW J.A.
[1]
The
merger of Air Canada and Canadian
International Airlines Limited on January 4, 2000, and the resulting
combination of their respective unionized workers, has caused a number of
difficulties. One difficulty that apparently remains unresolved is the
introduction, in January of 2001, of certain amendments to the In Flight Safety
Manual. Those amendments are at the root of this appeal.
[2]
The
appellants were of the view and still believe that the amendments to the In Flight
Safety Manual gave rise to certain risks to the health and safety of cabin
personnel. The appellants made a complaint under the internal complaint
resolution process mandated by section 127.1 of the Canada Labour Code. When the
complaints were not resolved to the satisfaction of the appellants, the
complaints were referred to a health and safety officer under subsection 127.1(8).
[3]
The
duties and powers of a health and safety officer are described in subsections 127.1(9),
(10) and (11) of the Canada Labour Code, which read as follows:
|
(9) The health and safety officer shall
investigate, or cause another health and safety officer to investigate, the
complaint referred to the officer under subsection (8).
|
(9) L’agent de
santé et de sécurité saisi de la plainte fait enquête sur celle-ci ou charge
un autre agent de santé et de sécurité de le faire à sa place.
|
|
(10) On
completion of the investigation, the health and safety officer
(a) may issue directions to an employer or employee under
subsection 145(1);
(b) may, if in the officer’s opinion it is appropriate, recommend
that the employee and employer resolve the matter between themselves; or
(c) shall, if the officer concludes that a danger exists as
described in subsection 128(1), issue directions under subsection 145(2).
|
(10) Au terme de
l’enquête, l’agent de santé et de sécurité :
a) peut donner à l’employeur ou à
l’employé toute instruction prévue au paragraphe 145(1);
b) peut, s’il l’estime opportun,
recommander que l’employeur et l’employé règlent à l’amiable la situation
faisant l’objet de la plainte;
c) s’il conclut à l’existence de l’une ou
l’autre des situations mentionnées au paragraphe 128(1), donne des
instructions en conformité avec le paragraphe 145(2).
|
|
(11) For greater certainty, nothing in this section limits a health and
safety officer’s authority under section 145.
|
(11) Il est entendu que les dispositions
du présent article ne portent pas atteinte aux pouvoirs conférés à l’agent de
santé et de sécurité sous le régime de l’article 145.
|
[4]
Subsections
145(1) and (2) of the Canada Labour Code read as follows:
|
145. (1) A health and safety officer who is of the opinion
that a provision of this Part is being contravened or has recently been
contravened may direct the employer or employee concerned, or both, to
(a)
terminate the contravention within the time that the officer may specify; and
(b) take steps, as specified by
the officer and within the time that the officer may specify, to ensure that
the contravention does not continue or re-occur.
|
145.
(1) S’il est d’avis qu’une contravention à la présente partie vient d’être
commise ou est en train de l’être, l’agent de santé et de sécurité peut
donner à l’employeur ou à l’employé en cause l’instruction :
a) d’y mettre
fin dans le délai qu’il précise;
b) de prendre, dans les
délais précisés, les mesures qu’il précise pour empêcher la continuation de
la contravention ou sa répétition.
|
|
[…]
|
[…]
|
|
(2) If a health and safety
officer considers that the use or operation of a machine or thing, a
condition in a place or the performance of an activity constitutes a danger
to an employee while at work,
(a) the officer shall notify the employer of the
danger and issue directions in writing to the employer directing the
employer, immediately or within the period that the officer specifies, to
take measures to
(i) correct the hazard or condition or alter the activity
that constitutes the danger, or
(ii) protect any person from the danger; and
(b)
the officer may, if the officer considers that the danger or the hazard,
condition or activity that constitutes the danger cannot otherwise be
corrected, altered or protected against immediately, issue a direction in
writing to the employer directing that the place, machine, thing or activity
in respect of which the direction is issued not be used, operated or
performed, as the case may be, until the officer’s directions are complied
with, but nothing in this paragraph prevents the doing of anything necessary
for the proper compliance with the direction.
|
(2)
S’il estime que l’utilisation d’une machine ou chose, une situation existant
dans un lieu de travail ou l’accomplissement d’une tâche constitue un danger
pour un employé au travail, l’agent :
a)
en avertit l’employeur et lui enjoint, par instruction écrite, de procéder,
immédiatement ou dans le délai qu’il précise, à la prise de mesures propres :
(i) soit à écarter le risque, à
corriger la situation ou à modifier la tâche,
(ii) soit à protéger les personnes
contre ce danger;
b) peut en
outre, s’il estime qu’il est impossible dans l’immédiat de prendre les
mesures prévues à l’alinéa a), interdire, par instruction écrite
donnée à l’employeur, l’utilisation du lieu, de la machine ou de la chose ou
l’accomplissement de la tâche en cause jusqu’à ce que ses instructions aient
été exécutées, le présent alinéa n’ayant toutefois pas pour effet d’empêcher
toute mesure nécessaire à la mise en oeuvre des instructions.
|
[5]
The
health and safety officer, Mr. Jacques Servant, decided not to issue a
direction under subsection 145(1) or (2). Instead, with respect to two of the
complaints, he accepted an “assurance of voluntary compliance” from Air Canada with respect
to the establishment and training of local health and safety committees. The
remaining complaints were effectively dismissed.
[6]
Mr.
Servant’s decision is set out in a letter dated May 7, 2001, the key parts of which
read as follows (Appeal Book, page 310):
|
Our concerns as a Health and Safety
Inspector relate to the local Health and Safety committees. Our investigation
indicates a lack of knowledge/education of the workplace committee members.
CUPE trained the employee representatives and Air Canada does not train the employer
representatives. Counselling and training must be conducted together to
understand the intent of the legislation. A good education program is the key
to creating an effective workplace committee. The administrative roles and
responsibilities of those involved in the workplace committee must be clearly
understood. Committees are required by law to establish rules and procedures
relating to the terms of office of members and to their operation.
|
|
To ensure that occupational health and
safety becomes part of the overall corporate decision making process,
Managers in each department of the company must be aware that decisions
regarding changes on-board aircraft may affect the aircrew’s work and create
hazards in their workplace. Decisions and initiatives shall be discussed with
the policy committee. These concerns were conveyed to Air Canada by requesting assurances of
voluntary compliance.
|
|
We could not find any evidence that Air
Canada has contravened the employer’s general duty to ensure that the safety
and health at work of every person employed by the employer is protected. In
fact, by having a required flight attendant manual where safety and emergency
procedures are set out demonstrates that the employer assumes his
responsibilities under section 124.
|
[7]
The
appellants believe that the investigation of their complaints was biased and
flawed in a number of respects, and that the resulting decision of Mr. Servant
is similarly flawed. The parties have agreed that, for the purposes of this
appeal, the Court should assume that these complaints are justified. The
appellants filed a notice of appeal of his decision under subsection 146(1) of the
Canada Labour Code, which reads as follows:
|
146. (1) An employer, employee or trade
union that feels aggrieved by a direction issued by a health and safety
officer under this Part may appeal the direction in writing to an appeals
officer within thirty days after the date of the direction being issued or
confirmed in writing.
|
146.
(1) Tout
employeur, employé ou syndicat qui se sent lésé par des instructions données
par l’agent de santé et de sécurité en vertu de la présente partie peut, dans
les trente jours qui suivent la date où les instructions sont données ou
confirmées par écrit, interjeter appel de celles-ci par écrit à un agent
d’appel.
|
[8]
An appeals
officer, Mr. Douglas Malanka, considered the matter and concluded that he lacked
the statutory authority to consider an appeal of a decision by a health and
safety officer not to issue a direction under section 145. The appellants
commenced an application for judicial review of the decision of Mr. Malanka. On
June 1, 2006, Justice Hughes dismissed the application for judicial review but
gave the appellants an extension of time for filing an application for judicial
review of the decision of the health and safety officer, Mr. Servant (2006 FC
673). The appellants now appeal the decision of Justice Hughes.
[9]
The
appellants argue that the decision of Justice Hughes is based on an incorrect
interpretation of subsection 146(1) of the Canada Labour Code, and that
Justice Hughes afforded the decision of Mr. Malanka too much deference on
the question of the interpretation of that provision. In the alternative, the
appellants argue that if section 146(1) was correctly interpreted by Justice
Hughes and Mr. Malanka, it is a breach of section 7 of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms and should be amended by a judicial “reading in” of
words that would permit the appellants to pursue their appeal of the decision
of Mr. Servant not to issue a direction.
[10]
We
are all of the view that the interpretation of subsection 146(1) adopted by Justice
Hughes and Mr. Malanka is correct. Subsection 146(1) of the Canada Labour
Code grants an employer, an employee or a trade union a right to appeal any
direction by a health and safety officer under section 145, but does not grant
anyone a right to appeal a decision by a health and safety officer not to issue
a direction. We do not consider it necessary to consider the issue of the
standard of review that was or should have been applied by Justice Hughes in
reviewing the decision of Mr. Malanka.
[11]
We
see no merit in the argument of the appellants that section 7 of the Charter is
breached by subsection 146(1) of the Canada Labour Code. It is well
established that there is no constitutional right to appeal, even in matters
with a significant effect on the life, liberty and security of the person (Kourtessis
v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 52 (per Justice
La Forest); Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] 1
S.C.R. 350 at paragraph 136; Huynh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), [1996] 2 F.C. 976; Canada (Secretary of State) v. Luitjens
(1992) 142 N.R. 173 (F.C.A.)). Section 7 of the Charter does not require Parliament
to provide a statutory right to appeal a decision of a health and safety
officer. Nevertheless, Parliament has provided a statutory right to appeal the
issuance of a section 145 direction by a health and safety officer. We see no
basis for concluding that, because of section 7 of the Charter, the existence
of that limited right of appeal means that there must also be a right to appeal
the decision of a health and safety officer not to issue such a direction.
[12]
This
appeal will be dismissed with costs.
“K. Sharlow”
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-290-06
An
appeal from the order of the Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes, of the Federal
Court, dated June 1, 2006. File no.: T-776-02.
STYLE OF CAUSE: PAMELA SACHS,
CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES,
AIRLINE DIVISION, AIR CANADA
COMPONENT,
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND
SAFETY
COMMITTEE OF LOCAL 4004 (TORONTO)
Appellants
and
AIR
CANADA
Respondent
PLACE OF
HEARING: Toronto,
Ontario.
DATE OF
HEARING: September 11, 2007
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT
BY: (DÉCARY,
SEXTON & SHARLOW JJ.A.)
DELIVERED
FROM THE
BENCH BY: SHARLOW
J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
Ms. Beth Symes
Mr.
Ben Millrad
|
FOR
THE APPELLANTS
|
|
Mr. Fred W. Headon
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Symes and Street
Barristers
& Solicitors
Toronto,
Ontario
|
FOR THE APPELLANTS
|
|
Air Canada
Dorval,
Quebec
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content