Docket: A-525-14
Citation: 2015 FCA 265
|
CORAM :
|
GAUTHIER J.A.
BOIVIN J.A.
DE MONTIGNY J.A.
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
CHRISTIAN BOMONGO
|
|
PATRICK
KENABANTU
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
UNIFOR AND BELL CANADA
|
|
Respondents
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF
THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Montreal, Qu ebec, on November 25, 2015.)
GAUTHIER J.A.
[1]
In their application for judicial review, the Applicants
Mr. Bomongo and Mr. Kenabantu challenge the decision of the Canada Industrial
Relations Board dismissing their complaint under section 37 of the Canada
Labour Code (R.S.C. (1985), c. L-2) because the complaint was filed after
the deadline and because, in this case, there was no basis for extending the
applicable deadline, given the lack of convincing reasons warranting such an
extension.
[2]
The Applicants base their case on, among other
things, a correspondence that they had not submitted to the Board to support
that the latter had erred in finding that they were aware, no later than
May 23, 2013, of the material facts in the complaint as expressed and
submitted on July 23, 2014. The applicable timeframe for filing that
complaint was 90 days.
[3]
The law is well settled: in general, judicial
review of the legal validity of a decision is carried out on the basis of the
record as it stands before the administrative decision-maker. No recognized exception
to that principle applies here and, therefore, we cannot take into account the
new evidence filed by the Applicants.
[4]
That being said, we note that the Applicants
also applied for reconsideration of their complaint, citing that new evidence. Their
application was dismissed by the Board, which found that, among other things,
that evidence would not have altered the decision that is the subject of the
current application because it simply reiterates that the union refused to continue
the adjudication of the Applicants’ grievances in the absence of adequate
cooperation from them. That decision regarding reconsideration was not
challenged.
[5]
The Board’s decision, as set out in paragraph 1 herein,
is subject to the standard of reasonableness.
[6]
The Applicants have failed to satisfy us, in the
matter of their complaint as expressed and the documentation before the Board, that
the latter’s finding that their complaint was past the deadline was not one of
the acceptable potential outcomes with respect to the facts and the applicable
law.
[7]
Contrary to what the Applicants claim in their
brief, the Board considered whether there was some basis for extending the
deadline despite the lack of an application from them in that regard. In the light
of the circumstances in this case, it was reasonable for the Board to conclude
that an extension was not warranted.
[8]
The application for judicial review will be
dismissed with costs set at a lump sum of $1,000 (taxes and disbursements
included).
“Johanne Gauthier”
Certified true translation
François Brunet,
Revisor
Email this Content