A-548-96
QUÉBEC, QUEBEC, THE 28th DAY OF APRIL, 1997
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HUGESSEN
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DÉCARY
THE HONOURABLE DEPUTY JUSTICE CHEVALIER
| BETWEEN: REGIONAL COUNTY MUNICIPALITY OF |
CHARLEVOIX-EST,
Applicant
Appellant
- AND -
PIERRE GUAY,
Respondent,
Respondent
- AND -
| CÔME POULIN, attorney, in his capacity as an adjudicator appointed by the Minister of Labour of Canada, |
Mis-en-cause,
Mis-en-cause
J U D G M E N T
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Certified true translation
Christiane Delon
A-548-96
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HUGESSEN
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DÉCARY
THE HONOURABLE DEPUTY JUSTICE CHEVALIER
| BETWEEN: REGIONAL COUNTY MUNICIPALITY OF |
CHARLEVOIX-EST,
Applicant
Appellant
- AND -
PIERRE GUAY,
Respondent,
Respondent
- AND -
| CÔME POULIN, attorney, in his capacity as an adjudicator appointed by the Minister of Labour of Canada, |
Mis-en-cause,
Mis-en-cause
Hearing held in Québec, Quebec, Monday, April 28, 1997.
Judgment pronounced at the hearing, April 28, 1997.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: HUGESSEN J.A.
A-548-96
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HUGESSEN
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DÉCARY
THE HONOURABLE DEPUTY JUSTICE CHEVALIER
| BETWEEN: REGIONAL COUNTY MUNICIPALITY OF |
CHARLEVOIX-EST,
Applicant
Appellant
- AND -
PIERRE GUAY,
Respondent,
Respondent
- AND -
| CÔME POULIN, attorney, in his capacity as an adjudicator appointed by the Minister of Labour of Canada, |
Mis-en-cause,
Mis-en-cause
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Pronounced at the hearing in Québec
Monday, April 28, 1997)
HUGESSEN J.A.
We are all of the opinion that the appellant has failed to demonstrate to us that Denault J. erred in law in dismissing the application for judicial review of the adjudicator"s decision. The adjudicator assessed the many items of evidence presented to him and concluded that:
| . . . the relationship of trust between the Employee and the R.C.M. was seriously affected prior to the dismissal, but not sufficiently to warrant this dismissal at the time it was made. |
| On the other hand, the facts that were subsequently discovered, and the suit for damages brought by the Employee against the R.C.M. and some of its officers foreclose, in our opinion, the possible reinstatement of the Employee in his duties, particularly because the full-time position he then held 12 months per year is now a seasonal position. |
| Finally, the credibility of the witnesses who testified, as I have assessed it, may differ strongly in the case of other persons, and it appears impossible, in fact, that there could be the necessary atmosphere of cooperation between the Employer and the Employee if the latter were to return to his employment. |
| In the circumstances, I will not order reinstatement, but I do agree that the Employee should have been given a reasonable advance notice at the time of his departure and that such notice should have been for 12 months. |
Faced with the appellant"s submission that this finding was patently unreasonable, Denault J. stated:
| If the adjudicator"s decision is read as a whole, as it must be, it is clear that he only partially upheld the complaint by Pierre Guay, who was seeking reinstatement in his position. In doing so, the adjudicator recognized that the relationship of trust had been so affected as to make reinstatement impossible. Depriving an employee of his livelihood constitutes recognition that he was at fault. But believing, as he was entitled to do, that the employer had failed to provide sufficient reasons at the time of the dismissal, had failed to give the employee an opportunity to explain himself, and had failed to give him reasonable advance notice of separation, the adjudicator wished to "counteract any consequence of the dismissal" by forcing the employer to pay the respondent the money referred to earlier. |
| In short, his decision is not patently unreasonable. |
There is nothing in this judgment that would warrant our intervention.
The appeal will be dismissed with costs.
Certified true translation
Christiane Delon
Federal Court of Appeal
Court File No. A-548-96
BETWEEN
REGIONAL COUNTY MUNICIPALITY OF
CHARLEVOIX-EST,
Applicant
Appellant
- AND -
PIERRE GUAY,
Respondent,
Respondent
- AND -
CÔME POULIN
Mis-en-cause,
Mis-en-cause
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| STYLE: REGIONAL COUNTY MUNICIPALITY OF |
CHARLEVOIX-EST,
Appellant
- AND -
PIERRE GUAY,
Respondent,
Respondent
- AND -
CÔME POULIN
Mis-en-cause,
Mis-en-cause
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
| OF THE COURT BY: Hugessen J.A. |
Décary J.A.
Chevalier, D.J.A.
APPEARANCES:
| Jean-Guy Villeneuve FOR THE APPLICANT |
| Louis Huot FOR THE RESPONDENT |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
KRONSTRÖM, DESJARDINS
Iberville Deux
1175 Lavigerie, suite 300
Ste-Foy, Quebec
G1V 4P1 FOR THE APPLICANT
DESJARDINS, DUCHARME, STEIN, MONAST
1150 rue de Claire-Fontaine
Bureau 300
Québec, Quebec
G1R 5G4 FOR THE RESPONDENT
Email this Content