Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20050217

Docket: A-185-01

Citation: 2005 FCA 69

CORAM:        NADON J.A.

SHARLOW J.A.

MALONE J.A.

BETWEEN:

                                                           FRANCIS MAZHERO

                                                                                                                                            Applicant

                                                                           and

                                     CANADA INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BOARD,

                                        NYCOLE TURMEL AND PATRICIA DAWS

                                                                                                                                      Respondents

                                      Heard at Winnipeg, Manitoba on February 17, 2005.

                Judgment delivered from the Bench at Winnipeg, Manitoba on February 17, 2005.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:                                              SHARLOW J.A.


Date: 20050217

Docket: A-185-01

Citation: 2005 FCA 69

CORAM:        NADON J.A.

SHARLOW J.A.

MALONE J.A.

BETWEEN:

                                                           FRANCIS MAZHERO

                                                                                                                                            Applicant

                                                                           and

                                     CANADA INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BOARD,

                                        NYCOLE TURMEL AND PATRICIA DAWS

                                                                                                                                      Respondents

                                     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

                  (Delivered from the Bench at Winnipeg, Manitoba on February 17, 2005)

SHARLOW J.A.

[1]                The appellant Francis Mazhero did not appear for the hearing of this matter despite having been duly notified. Counsel for the respondents appeared but were not asked for oral submissions. Having carefully reviewed the record and the written arguments of all parties, we are unable to find any error in the decision sought to be reviewed that would warrant the intervention of this Court. This application will be dismissed with costs to the respondent Nycole Turmel. The respondent Canada Industrial Relations Board did not seek costs.

                                                                                                                                        "K. Sharlow"            

                                                                                                                                                      J.A.


                                                 FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                                                              A-185-01

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                             Francis Mazhero v. Canada Industrial Relations Board, Nycole Turmel and Patricia Daws

PLACE OF HEARING:                                                        Winnipeg, Manitoba

DATE OF HEARING:                                                           February 17, 2005

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT             NADON J.A.

SHARLOW J.A.

MALONE J.A.

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:                            SHARLOW J.A.

APPEARANCES:

Francis Mazhero

Paul Champs

Ottawa, ON

FOR THE APPLICANT - DID NOT APPEAR

FOR THE RESPONDENT

NYCOLE TURMEL

Susan L. Nicholas

Ottawa, ON

FOR THE RESPONDENT

CIRB

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Raven, Allen, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP,

Ottawa, ON

FOR THE RESPONDENT - NYCOLE TURMEL

Susan Nicholas

Legal Counsel

Ottawa, ON

Gordon Coffin

Legal Counsel

Department of Justice Government of Yukon

Whitehorse, Yukon

FOR THE RESPONDENT

CIRB

FOR THE RESPONDENT

PATRICIA DAWS


 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.