Norton v. Via Rail Canada Inc., 2002 FCT 1175

Date: 20021113

Docket: T-1280-02

Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 1175

Montreal, Quebec, November 13, 2002

Present:           Richard Morneau, Esq., Prothonotary                                   

BETWEEN:

                                                                 BRIAN NORTON

                                                                                                                                                       Applicant

                                                                                 and

                                                            VIA RAIL CANADA INC.

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

Motion on behalf of the Respondent for an Order striking the Applicant's Application.

                                               REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

[1]                 An Application was filed by the Applicant on August 9, 2002, seeking an order from this Court to force the Respondent to comply with Recommendations number 1, 3 and 4 of the Final Investigation Report on language requirements and related issues concerning VIA Rail in Western Canada dated May 2002, released by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages (the Commissioner), as well as for an order to be indemnified for lost wages.

[2]                 Based on the written representations filed by the Respondent in support of the instant motion, this motion is hereby granted, the whole without costs.

[3]                 In his prayer for relief, the Applicant is seeking an order enjoining VIA Rail Canada Inc. (VIA) to comply with the Commissioner's recommendations number 1, 3 and 4. The Applicant is seeking a remedy of the nature of an injunction or a mandamus.

[4]                 An order of mandamus or an injunction can only be granted against a respondent if that respondent is bound to accomplish a specific legal duty.

[5]                 Recommendations made by the Commissioner do not create any legal duty or obligation on VIA and are thus not enforceable.

[6]                 Hence, VIA is under no legal duty to comply with the Commissioner's recommendations.

[7]                 In addition, this Court must decline jurisdiction on the Application as the Applicant's claims are in fact grievances which must be settled according to the terms of the Collective Agreement, such terms excluding the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.

[8]                 The Charter argument presented in the Applicant's Response to the Respondent's Motion to strike is not relevant since arbitrators have jurisdiction over Charter issues. (Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929, 952 and following; Latulippe v. Commission scolaire de la Jeune-Lorette, R.E.J.B. 2001-22471 (Q.C.A.); Johnson-Paquette v. Her Majesty the Queen, Docket T-165-98, November 26, 1998, Tremblay-Lamer J., paragraph 25.)

[9]                 The Applicant's Response to the Respondent's Motion to strike also refers the Court to the decision Rogers v. Canada, [2001] 2 F.C. 586 (T.D.). This decision cannot be used to counter VIA's arguments since no issues of jurisdiction were discussed in Rogers v. Canada.

[10]            As it was done in Re Canada Post Corp. and P.S.A.C., (1996) 58 L.A.C. (4th) 377, and with respect to the applicable law principles, the dispute between the Applicant and VIA has to be decided by an arbitrator following the mandatory arbitration process provided by the Collective Agreement. (Affidavit of Mr. Paul Côté dated September 20, 2002: Collective Agreement No. 2 covering On-Board Services Employees, Exhibit 1; Re Canada Post Corp. and P.S.A.C., (1996) 58 L.A.C. (4th) 377; see also Bouchard v. Department of National Defence et al., (1999) 187 D.L.R. (4th) 314, 321-322 (F.C.A.).)

[11]            Therefore, as indicated above, this motion is granted and the Applicant's Application is struck, the whole without costs.

[12]            These Reasons for Order and Order are applicable mutatis mutandis to Court files T-1165-02 and T-1167-02 and a copy thereof shall be placed in said Court files.

      Richard Morneau    

                                                 Prothonotary

                                                                 FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                                                              TRIAL DIVISION

Date : 20021113

Docket : T-1280-02

BETWEEN:

BRIAN NORTON

                                                                            Applicant

and

VIA RAIL CANADA INC.

                                                                           Respondent

                                REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

                          FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                              TRIAL DIVISION

                    COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:

STYLE OF CAUSE:

T-1280-02

BRIAN NORTON

                                   Applicant

and

VIA RAIL CANADA INC.

                                  Respondent

WRITTEN MOTION EXAMINED IN MONTREAL WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES

REASONS FOR ORDER OF:Richard Morneau, Esq., Prothonotary

DATED:November 13, 2002

WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS BY:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: