Date: 20020718
Docket: A-185-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 295
Present: EVANS J.A.
BETWEEN:
FRANCIS MAZHERO
Applicant
and
CANADA INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BOARD, NYCOLE TURMEL, AND
PATRICIA DAWS
Respondents
"Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties."
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on July 18, 2002.
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: EVANS J.A.
Date: 20020718
Docket: A-185-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 295
Present: EVANS J.A.
BETWEEN:
FRANCIS MAZHERO
Applicant
and
CANADA INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BOARD, NYCOLE TURMEL, AND
PATRICIA DAWS
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER
EVANS J.A.
[1] The applicant has brought a motion in writing pursuant to rule 369 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, for permission under rule 312 to file new evidence and to submit a supplementary memorandum of fact and law.
[2] The motion is technically deficient in that the applicant only filed one copy of his motion record, instead of the three required by rule 364, and provided no proof of service. Nonetheless, since it is clear from the motion records filed and served by the respondents that they had been served with the applicant's motion record, and the applicant is representing himself, I am prepared to determine the motion on its merits. Accordingly, the Registry should file the applicant's motion record, despite the deficiencies noted above.
[3] The motion is made in connection with an application for judicial review in which the applicant seeks an order requiring the Canada Industrial Relations Board to hear and determine in accordance with law his complaint that the Public Service Alliance of Canada ("PSAC") breached its duty of fair representation in failing to refer to arbitration his grievance that his employer, the Yukon Territorial Government, had unjustly dismissed him from his employment as a teacher.
[4] PSAC has taken the position that, because of the temporary nature of his employment, the applicant was not an "employee" under the relevant legislation and was thus not entitled to become a member of the union. Hence, it could not take his grievance to arbitration. The Board dismissed the complaint of unfair representation on the ground that it had no jurisdiction over the matter, since the Yukon Territorial Government was not an employer subject to the jurisdiction of the Board.
[5] Applications for judicial review are summary proceedings that should be determined without undue delay. Consequently, the discretion of the Court to permit the filing of additional material should be exercised with great circumspection. Thus, in Deigan v. Canada (Industry), [1999] F.C.J. No. 304 (Proth.), aff'd. [1999] F.C.J. No. 645 (T.D.), Prothonotary Hargrave said (at para. 3):
The new Federal Court Rules allow the filing of a supplementary affidavit and of a supplementary record, however such should only be allowed in limited instances and special circumstances, for to do otherwise would not be in the spirit of judicial review proceedings, which are designed to obtain quick relief through a summary procedure. While the general test for such supplementary material is whether the additional material will serve the interests of justice, will assist the Court and will not seriously prejudice the other side, it is also important that any supplementary affidavit and supplementary record neither deal with material which could have been made available at an earlier date, nor unduly delay the proceedings.
[6] The evidence that the applicant seeks leave to be admitted in this case does not satisfy these criteria. First, the interests of justice are unlikely to be served by the admission of this material because it is of marginal, if any, relevance to the subject matter of the application for judicial review. The documents in question were not before the Board and are therefore unlikely to be relevant to the application for judicial review. In addition, since they are tendered to support the applicant's claim that he was entitled to be a member of PSAC, they are not relevant to the ground on which the Board dismissed his complaint, namely, that the Yukon Territorial Government is not an employer over which it has jurisdiction and that it therefore had no authority to hear and determine the applicant's complaint. Second, the applicant has provided no explanation for his failure to adduce the evidence earlier.
[7] Finally, the applicant alleges that permission to admit the material should be granted because the respondents have committed fraud on the Court by withholding documents. Apart from the absence in the record of evidence to support this serious allegation, I note that the documents identified by the applicant again appear to relate to his claim to be entitled to be a member of PSAC, and not to the jurisdiction of the Board over the matter.
[8] For these reasons, the motion is dismissed, with costs payable by the applicant to the respondent, Nycole Turmel, in any event of the cause.
"John M. Evans"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-185-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: Francis Mazhero v. Canada Industrial Relations Board, Nycole Turmel, and Patricia Daws
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT THE APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Evans
DATED: July 18, 2002
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Mr. Francis Mazhero ON HIS OWN BEHALF
Mr. Paul Champ FOR THE RESPONDENT,
Nycole Turmel
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Francis Mazhero ON HIS OWN BEHALF
Legal Counsel FOR THE RESPONDENT,
Ottawa, Ontario CIRB
Raven, Allen, Cameron & Ballantyne FOR THE RESPONDENT,
Ottawa, Ontario Nycole Turrmel
Legal Services Branch FOR THE RESPONDENT,
Department of Justice Patricia Daws
Government of Yukon
Whitehorse, Yukon
Email this Content