Date: 20020213
Docket: A-719-00
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 64
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
BETWEEN:
CANADIAN COUNCIL OF RAILWAY
OPERATING UNIONS
Applicant
and
ROBERT ADAMS,
CANADA INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BOARD,
and
ST. LAWRENCE & HUDSON RAILWAY
COMPANY LIMITED
Respondents
Heard at Montreal, Quebec, on February 13, 2002
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Montreal, Quebec, on February 13, 2002
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DESJARDINS J.A.
Date: 20020213
Docket: A-719-00
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 64
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
BETWEEN:
CANADIAN COUNCIL OF RAILWAY
OPERATING UNIONS
Applicant
and
ROBERT ADAMS,
CANADA INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BOARD,
and
ST. LAWRENCE & HUDSON RAILWAY
COMPANY LIMITED
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Montreal, Quebec
on February 13, 2002)
[1] Of all the arguments made by the applicant with regard to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board's decision ("the Board") (2000), CIRB Decision No. 95 (unreported), the only one which merits attention is the allegation that the Board exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing its remedial order.
[2] In our view, this issue has been dealt with by this Court in Canadian Air Line Pilots Association v. Brian L. Eamor et al., [1997] F.C.J. No.859 (QL), where Marceau J.A. for the Court said, as he applied the standard of review of patent unreasonableness:
As for the remedy ordered by the Board, with respect to which the same standard of review is applicable, we see no more reason to intervene. On the one hand, the award of costs was rationally connected to the section 37 breach and its consequences within the meaning of subsection 99(2). On the other hand, a potential award of damages, provided it be established as having a direct causal link to the breach, is not in itself insupportable under the broad remedial discretion conferred by subsection 99(2) as it is not punitive in nature, does not infringe the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and does not contradict the purposes of the Code (cf. Royal Oak Mines Inc. v. Canada (Labour Relations Board), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 369).
[3] We have not been persuaded that the Board exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding the said remedy in the case at bar.
[4] This application for judicial review is dismissed with costs in favour of the respondent Robert Adams only.
"Alice Desjardins"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
Date: 20020213
Docket: A-719-00
BETWEEN:
CANADIAN COUNCIL OF RAILWAY
OPERATING UNIONS
Applicant
and
ROBERT ADAMS,
CANADA INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS BOARD,
and
ST. LAWRENCE & HUDSON RAILWAY
COMPANY LIMITED
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-719-00
CORAM : DESJARDINS J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
NOËL J.A.
STYLE OF CAUSE: CANADIAN COUNCIL OF RAILWAY
OPERATING UNIONS
Applicant
and
ROBERT ADAMS,
CANADA INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS BOARD,
and
ST. LAWRENCE & HUDSON RAILWAY
COMPANY LIMITED
Respondents
PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: February 13, 2002
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY DESJARDINS, J.A.
DATED: February 13, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Douglas J. Wray FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. James R.K. Duggan FOR THE RESPONDENT
Robert Adams
Mrs. Karen L. Flemming FOR THE RESPONDENTS
Canada Industrial Relations Board and
St. Lawrence & Hudson Railway Company Limited
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Caley & Wray FOR THE APPLICANT
Toronto, Ontario
Schurman, Longo & Duggan FOR THE RESPONDENT
Montreal, Quebec Robert Adams
Canadian Pacific Railway Company FOR THE RESPONDENTS
Calgary, Alberta Canada Industrial Relations Board and
St. Lawrence & Hudson Railway Company Limited