Date: 20000309
Docket: T-1611-99
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, MARCH 9, 2000
| BEFORE: TREMBLAY-LAMER J. |
Between:
ANDREW FRÈVE,
Plaintiff,
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
(Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada),
Defendant.
O R D E R
The application at bar is allowed and the case is transferred to the Federal Court of Appeal.
| |
Danièle Tremblay-Lamer
Judge
|
Certified true translation
Martine Brunet, LL. B.
Date: 20000309
Docket: T-1611-99
Between:
ANDREW FRÈVE,
Plaintiff,
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
(Agriculture and Agri-food Canada),
Defendant.
REASONS FOR ORDER
TREMBLAY-LAMER J.
[1] This is an application by the plaintiff for the transfer of his application for judicial review to the Federal Court of Appeal pursuant to Rule 49 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998.1 Counsel for the defendant consents to the transfer. However, the Public Service Staff Relations Board ("the Board"), in a letter dated December 22, 1999, stated its opinion that the Trial Division is the proper court to hear the application for judicial review.
[2] The only question that arises in the case at bar is whether when the deputy president rendered her decision on October 6, 1999 she acted as the Board, thereby giving exclusive jurisdiction to hear the application for judicial review to the Federal Court of Appeal pursuant to paragraph 28(1)(i) of the Federal Court Act ("the Act"),2 or whether she was instead acting as a grievance adjudicator as this jurisdiction would then reside with the Trial Division.3
[3] Like the parties in the case at bar, I consider that when Ms. Galipeau ruled on the application for an extension of time she was acting as the Board.
[4] Under subsection 63(b) of the P.S.S.R.B. Regulations and Rules of Procedure (1993) ("the Regulations"),4 it is for the Board, and not an adjudicator appointed pursuant to paragraph 95(2)(c) of the Act, to extend the times prescribed or provided for in a grievance procedure contained in a collective agreement:
| 63. Notwithstanding anything in this Part, the times prescribed by this Part or provided for in a grievance procedure contained in a collective agreement or in an arbitral award for the doing of any act, the presentation of a grievance at any level or the providing or filing of any notice, reply or document may be extended, either before or after the expiration of those times
. . . . .
| (b) by the Board, on the application of an employer, an employee or a bargaining agent, on such terms and conditions as the Board considers advisable. |
|
|
| 63. Par dérogation à toute disposition de la présente partie, les délais prévus aux termes de la présente partie, d'une procédure applicable aux griefs énoncée dans une convention collective ou d'une décision arbitrale, pour l'accomplissement d'un acte, la présentation d'un grief à un palier ou la remise ou le dépôt d'un avis, d'une réponse ou d'un document peuvent être prorogés avant ou après leur expiration:
. . . . .
| b) soit par la Commission, à la demande de l'employeur, du fonctionnaire ou de l'agent négociateur, selon les modalités que la Commission juge indiquées. |
|
|
[5] In the opinion of the Board, s. 96.1 of the Act allowed Ms. Galipeau, as grievance adjudicator, to exercise the discretionary authority of the Board mentioned in subsection 63(b) of the Regulations. Section 96.1 reads as follows:
| 96.1 An adjudicator has, in relation to the adjudication, all the powers, rights and privileges of the Board, other than the power to make regulations under section 22.
|
96.1 L'arbitre de grief a, dans le cadre de l'affaire dont il est saisi, tous les droits et pouvoirs de la Commission, sauf le pouvoir réglementaire prévu à l'article 22.
|
[6] Such a position does not take into account the wording of s. 96.1, which provides that an adjudicator has the rights and powers of the Board only in relation to the adjudication. It therefore confers on the adjudicator the powers of the Board in the hearing of a grievance but does not have the effect of giving an adjudicator powers not conferred on her by the Act.
[7] In the case at bar when the application for an extension of time was heard the adjudication was not yet before Ms. Galipeau. It was therefore impossible for her to act as adjudicator.
[8] For these reasons, the application at bar is allowed and the case is transferred to the Federal Court of Appeal.
| |
Danièle Tremblay-Lamer
Judge
|
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
March 9, 2000
Certified true translation
Martine Brunet, LL. B.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| STYLE OF CAUSE: Andrew Frève and Attorney General of Canada |
| PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario |
| DATE OF HEARING: March 9, 2000 |
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: TREMBLAY -LAMER J. |
APPEARANCES:
| Nancy Lamarche FOR THE PLAINTIFF |
| Marie Claude Couture FOR THE DEFENDANT |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Nelligan, Power FOR THE PLAINTIFF |
Ottawa, Ontario
| Morris Rosenberg FOR THE DEFENDANT |
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
__________________
1 SOR/98-106.
2 R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7.
3 Beirnes v. Canada (Treasury Board) (1993), 67 F.T.R. 226.
4 SOR/93-348.
Email this Content