Docket: A-200-15
Citation: 2015 FCA 287
|
CORAM:
|
NADON J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
SCOTT J.A.
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
LA COOPERATIVE
DE TRANSPORT MARITIME ET AÉRIEN
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
UNITED STEELWORKERS, LOCAL 9538
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF
THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Québec, Quebec,
on December 16, 2015.)
TRUDEL J.A.
[1]
In a decision dated March 19, 2015, the Canada
Industrial Relations Board (the Board) determined that the level of ferry
service to be maintained between Cap-aux-Meules and Souris in the event of a
strike or lockout would be three times a week. The applicant, the Coopérative
de transport maritime et aérien (the Co-operative), brought an application for
judicial review before this Court to have the Board’s decision set aside.
[2]
It is not disputed that since then, on July 24,
2015, the parties settled their labour dispute by signing a collective agreement
and a return-to-work protocol.
[3]
At the hearing on the merits of this
application, the respondent, United Steelworkers, Local 9538 (the Union), filed
a supplementary memorandum in which it argued that, in the light of the
settlement of the labour dispute after the Board’s impugned decision, the
application was now moot and should be summarily dismissed.
[4]
The applicant submits that the case is not moot
and that the challenged decision sets a bad precedent. It argues that the Board
asked itself the wrong question, as appears from paragraph 113 of its
reasons. The applicant is of the opinion that this Court should remind the
Board of its role when an application is made to it under section 87.4 of
the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, and of the two-step
process it must follow under subsections (6) and (8). In short, we are to
remind the Board that it must comply with the Canada Labour Code.
[5]
It is our intention to decline that invitation.
In our view, paragraph 113 of the Board’s reasons is more consistent with
a comment written in obiter than with reasons supporting its final
decision. Furthermore, agreeing to the request by counsel for the applicant
would amount to giving the Board a legal opinion on the alleged errors of law in
the Board’s reasons.
[6]
Joseph Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342, is a leading case as to the doctrine on
mootness. Although it was decided in a criminal law context, the principles
that emerge from it have been applied in civil matters (see Association des
pharmaciens des établissements de santé du Québec c. Conseil des services
essentiels, AZ-01021398; D.T.E. 2001T-345, affirmed on appeal AZ-04019603).
As that case ruled, the approach to take when determining whether a dispute has
become moot is a two-step process. First, the Court must decide whether, at the
time the Court must render a decision, the required tangible and concrete
dispute has disappeared, rendering the issues academic. Second, and despite an
affirmative answer at the first stage, the Court must decide whether or not it
will nonetheless decide the moot issue or issues.
[7]
In the present case, we are all of the opinion
that there is no concrete dispute between the parties since the labour dispute
that led to the Board’s decision no longer exists. The parties can no longer
resort to pressure tactics that bring the notion of essential services into
play because there is now a new collective agreement governing their labour
relations.
[8]
That being said, we note the numerous issues
raised on the merits by the applicant in its memorandum of fact and law, issues
that go far beyond the Board’s mere ruling on the number of ferry crossings to
be made per week. Exercising our discretion, we choose not to answer these
questions: (a) it cannot be said that both parties still have an interest in
the dispute; (b) it is not worthwhile to devote judicial resources to resolving
an appeal that has become moot; and (c) this Court’s intervention would
not serve the interests of justice.
[9]
The application for judicial review will,
therefore, be dismissed with costs.
“Johanne Trudel”
Certified true
translation
François Brunet,
Revisor
Email this Content