Can. (A.G.) v. PSAC (1993), 150 N.R. 161 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
The Attorney General of Canada (appellant) v. Public Service Alliance of Canada (respondent)
(No. 22295)
Indexed As: Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Service Alliance of Canada
Supreme Court of Canada
Lamer, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé,
Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin,
Iacobucci, JJ.
March 25, 1993.
Summary:
The Public Service Alliance of Canada referred a matter to the Public Service Staff Relations Board under s. 99 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The Board ruled that the Crown violated a collective agreement and the federal government’s Workforce Adjustment Policy by contracting out certain functions theretofore performed by members of the bargaining unit. The Attorney General of Canada applied to quash the Board’s decision on a jurisdictional basis as well as on the merits.
The Federal Court of Appeal, Pratte, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported 124 N.R. 379, dismissed the application to quash. The Attorney General of Canada appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.
Administrative Law – Topic 1503
Finality – Final and conclusive clauses – Effect of – On judicial review by courts – The Supreme Court of Canada traced the evolution of the position of the courts with respect to review of decisions of administrative tribunals – The court set out the standard and method of review currently applicable – See paragraphs 22 to 41.
Administrative Law – Topic 3201
Judicial review – General – [See
Administrative Law – Topic 1503
].
Administrative Law – Topic 9101
Boards and tribunals – Judicial review – General – [See
Administrative Law – Topic 1503
].
Administrative Law – Topic 9118
Boards and tribunals – Judicial review – Curial deference to decisions of tribunals – [See
Administrative Law – Topic 1503
].
Administrative Law – Topic 9118
Boards and tribunals – Judicial review – Curial deference to decisions of tribunal – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed why the decisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Board made within its jurisdiction should be treated with deference by the court – See paragraphs 42, 43.
Labour Law – Topic 9062
Public service labour relations – The board – Jurisdiction – Reference to chairman to enforce collective agreement obligation – A public sector collective agreement incorporated the federal government’s “Work Adjustment Policy” (i.e., a workforce reduction plan) – To reduce its workforce, Revenue Canada contracted out work, affecting 278 employees – The Public Service Alliance of Canada argued that the contracting out violated the collective agreement – The matter was referred to the Public Service Staff Relations Board under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, s. 99 – The Board ruled that it had jurisdiction and that the Department violated the policy and the collective agreement – The Supreme Court of Canada refused to disturb the Board’s decision where the Board correctly decided that it had jurisdiction and the decision was not patently unreasonable – See paragraphs 47 to 68.
Labour Law – Topic 9321
Public service labour relations – Judicial review – Decisions of board – General – [See
Administrative Law – Topic 1503
and second
Administrative Law – Topic 9118
].
Labour Law – Topic 9327
Public service labour relations – Judicial review – Decisions of board – Patently unreasonable decisions – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed what constituted a “patently unreasonable” decision – See paragraphs 44, 45.
Labour Law – Topic 9327
Public service labour relations – Judicial review – Decisions of board – Patently unreasonable decisions – [See
Labour Law – Topic 9062
].
Labour Law – Topic 9869
Public service labour relations – Job lay-offs and other work reduction schemes – Workforce Adjustment Policy – [See
Labour Law – Topic 9062
].
Cases Noticed:
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Corp., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 227; 26 N.R. 341; 25 N.B.R.(2d) 237; 51 A.P.R. 237; 97 D.L.R.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 22 et seq.].
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 796, [1970] S.C.R. 425; 11 D.L.R.(3d) 336, refd to. [para. 23].
Bell v. Ontario Human Rights Commission, [1971] S.C.R. 756; 18 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 23].
Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission, [1969] 2 A.C. 147; [1969] 1 All E.R. 208 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 23].
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Syndicat des employés de production du Québec et de l’Acadie, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 412; 55 N.R. 321; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 457, refd to. [para. 28].
Syndicat national des employés de la commission scolaire régionale de l’Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244, refd to. [para. 31 et seq.].
U.E.S., Local 298 v. Bibeault – see Syndicat national des employés de la commission scolaire régionale de l’Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).
Canada (Procureur général) v. Alliance de la Fonction publique du Canada, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 614; 123 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 34 et seq.].
Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada (Attorney General) and Econosult Ltd. – see Canada (Procureur général) v. Alliance de la Fonction publique du Canada.
Bell Canada v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1722; 97 N.R. 15, refd to. [para. 37].
National Corn Growers Association et al. v. Canadian Import Tribunal, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1324; 114 N.R. 81; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 449, refd to. [para. 38].
Planet Development Corp. and Lester (W.W.) (1978) Ltd. v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 740, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 644; 123 N.R. 241; 88 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 15; 274 A.P.R. 15; 91 C.L.L.C. 14,002; 76 D.L.R.(4th) 389; 48 Admin. L.R. 1, refd to. [para. 39].
Fraser v. Public Service Staff Relations Board, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 455; 63 N.R. 161; 23 D.L.R.(4th) 122; refd to. [para. 40].
Crevier v. Attorney General of Quebec and Aubry; Crevier v. Attorney General of Quebec and Cofsky and Attorney General of Alberta, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 220; 38 N.R. 541; 127 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 41].
Paccar of Canada Ltd. v. Canadian Association of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers, Local 14, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 983; 102 N.R. 1; 62 D.L.R.(3d) 437; 89 C.L.L.C. 14,050; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 673; 40 Admin. L.R. 181, refd to. [para. 45 et seq.].
R. v. Lavoie, [1978] 1 F.C. 778; 18 N.R. 521 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 50].
Gloin et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1978] 2 F.C. 307; 20 N.R. 475 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 50].
Canadian Air Traffic Control Association v. Canada, [1985] 2 F.C. 84; 57 N.R. 351 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 50].
Mudarth v. Canada (Minister of Public Works), [1989] 3 F.C. 371; 22 F.T.R. 312 (T.D.), affd. (1990), 113 N.R. 159 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 60].
Gonthier et al. v. Canada et al. (1986), 77 N.R. 386 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 60].
Flieger v. New Brunswick (1991), 125 N.B.R.(2d) 228; 316 A.P.R. 228 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted [1992] 2 S.C.R. vi, dist. [para. 61].
Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop (1993), 149 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 71].
Statutes Noticed:
Canada Labour Code – see Labour Code.
Civil Service Act, S.N.B. 1984, c. C-5.1, sect. [para. 61].
Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 28 [para. 11].
Labour Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. L-1, sect. 61.5(3) [para. 62].
Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-33, sect. 29 [para. 60 et seq.].
Public Service Labour Relations Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. P-25, generally [para. 24].
Public Service Staff Relations Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-35, sect. 12 [para. 17]; sect. 21, sect. 22 [para. 19]; sect. 92 [paras. 12, 47-49, 54, 70]; sect. 99 [para. 10 et seq.]; sect. 101 [para. 18].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Canada, Work Force Adjustment Policy, ss. 1 [para. 58]; 1.3 [para. 3]; 1.8 [para. 4]; 2 [para. 58]; 3 [paras. 6, 58]; 5 [paras. 7, 59]; 6 [paras. 7, 58].
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary [para. 44].
Counsel:
Eric A. Bowie, Q.C., and Harvey A. Newman, for the appellant;
Andrew J. Raven, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;
Raven, Jewitt & Allen, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on November 12, 1992, before Lamer, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered on March 25, 1993, in both official languages, including the following opinions:
Cory, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., Sopinka and Iacobucci, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 68;
L’Heureux-Dubé, J., concurring in the result (Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 69 to 78.
