Date: 20000211
Docket: A-552-97
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
ADITYA NARAYAN VARMA
Applicant
- and -
CANADA LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent
- and -
CANADIAN UNION OF POSTAL WORKERS
Respondent
- and -
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario on Monday, February 7, 2000
Judgment delivered at Toronto, Ontario
on Friday, February 11, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: DESJARDINS J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
Date: 20000211
Docket: A-552-97
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
ADITYA NARAYAN VARMA
Applicant
- and -
CANADA LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent
- and -
CANADIAN UNION OF POSTAL WORKERS
Respondent
- and -
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DESJARDINS J.A.:
| _. This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board ("the Board"), dated July 14, 1997, which dismissed an application for reconsideration filed by the applicant with regard to an earlier decision of the Board dated January 30, 1991. |
| _. At the beginning of the hearing, the Court took under reserve a set of three documents, the first referring to Board file no. 745-3228, the second referring to Board file no. 745-3229 and the third referring to Board file no. 530-1757. The first document is a formal complaint filed by the applicant on March 10, 1989, against Brother John Fehr, National Chief Steward, Canadian Union of Postal Workers. The second is a formal complaint filed by the applicant on March 6, 1989, against Brother Angelo Colacci, Chief Steward, Canadian Union of Postal Workers. The third one is the decision of the Board, rendered on January 30, 1991, signed by T.M. Eberlee, Vice-Chairman. These documents are now accepted by the Court and become part of the record. |
| _. The hearing was set for a duration not to exceed one day by direction of the Chief Justice dated December 17, 1999. The applicant was given the full morning to present his submissions. He complained, however, that he was not given enough time to make his presentation. |
| _. The time that was given to him is the one generally given to an applicant for a one day hearing. |
| _. The applicant submitted to us six anomalies which, he said, were found in the decision under review (Board file no. 530-02630) and in two other earlier decisions of the Board (Board file no. 745-3228 and Board file no. 745-3229) which are related to the decision under review. |
| _. We have examined the six anomalies submitted by the applicant and find them without merit. |
| _. The key complaint of the applicant relates to the fact that except for some documents which he received through the involvement of the Privacy Commissioner1 he was not given the right to access his personal file, although, he says, he is entitled to it under the collective agreement. He also complains that the Board member Mary Rozenberg should not have been part of the panel who made the decision on January 30, 1991, because she had worked as a Labour Relations Officer for Canada Post Corporation in the 1980s and was therefore biased. |
| _. These matters were before the Board when it heard the matter under review. After having considered its policy with respect to applications for reconsideration of the Board decisions, the Board came to the following conclusion: |
| In this case, the Applicant alleges that, as a result of having made access to information requests under the Privacy Act, he discovered that the files concerning his employment contained certain information of which he was not aware at the time of the original hearing. Other than this allegation, the Board is left to speculate as to whether this information is such that, had it been known to the Board, it might have led to the issuing of a different order or decision by the original panel. This the Board will not do. |
| Any application for reconsideration brought before the Board on the grounds of new facts that were not brought to the attention of the original panel must be specific with respect to the facts alleged to be material, must provide some explanation of the reasons why the applicant believes the facts are such that, had they been known to the Board, they might have led to the issuing of a different order or decision, and must provide some explanation of the reasons these facts were not brought to the attention of the original panel. |
| The present application fails in this respect in that it is simply based on the fact that the applicant"s files contain some information which was not disclosed to him. The application is based on pure speculation and must therefore be dismissed. |
| This is not to preclude a proper application based on new facts (as described above) made in a timely fashion after discovering such new facts. This is not the case here. |
| _. The Board is protected by a strong privative clause found in section 22 of the Canada Labour Code2. The matters under reconsideration by the Board fell well within the jurisdiction of the Board. We have not been persuaded that the Board acted in a patently unreasonable manner in determining the issues the way it did. |
| _. This application for judicial review should therefore be dismissed, with costs to the Canada Post Corporation since it asked for costs. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers did not ask for costs. |
"A. Desjardins"
J.A.
"I concur.
Marshall Rothstein"
"I concur.
Karen R. Sharlow"
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| STYLE OF CAUSE: ADITYA NARAYAN VARMA |
Applicant
CANADA LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
- and -
CANADIAN UNION OF POSTAL WORKERS
- and -
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Respondents
DATE OF HEARING: MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2000
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
Delivered at Toronto, Ontario
Friday, February 11, 2000
APPEARANCES: Ms. Aditya Narayan Varma
| For the Applicant in Person |
Mr. David I. Bloom, Esq.
For the Respondent
Canadian Union of Postal Workers
Mr. Roy C. Filion, Esq.
For the Respondent
Canada Post Corporation
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Aditya Narayan Varma |
275 Goldenwood Road
Toronto, Ontario
M2M 4A7
For the Applicant in Person
Canada Labour Relations Board
C.D. Howe Building - West Tower
240 Sparks Street, 4th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0X8
For the Respondent
Canada Labour Relations Board
| Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton McIntyre & Cornish |
Barristers & Solicitors
43 Madison Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
M5R 2S2
For the Respondent
Canadian Union of Postal Workers
Rilion, Wakely & Thorup
Barristers & Solicitors
Suite 2601, 150 King Street West
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 4B6
For the Respondent
Canada Post Corporation
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date: 20000211
Docket: A-552-97
BETWEEN:
ADITYA NARAYAN VARMA
Applicant
| CANADA LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD |
Respondent
- and -
CANADIAN UNION OF POSTAL WORKERS
Respondent
- and -
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
__________________
1 Applicant"s Application Record, Volume II, pp. 425-426.
2 R.S.C. 1985 c. L-2.
Email this Content