Seaspan Intl. Ltd. v. Bauer (2003), 233 F.T.R. 170 (TD)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2003] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.044
Seaspan International Ltd. (applicant) v. John Bauer (respondent)
(T-857-02; 2003 FCT 560)
Indexed As: Seaspan International Ltd. v. Bauer
Federal Court of Canada
Trial Division
Lemieux, J.
May 7, 2003.
Summary:
A proceeding under s. 240 of the Canada Labour Code arose out of a complaint by Bauer concerning Seaspan’s termination of his employment. Seaspan applied for judicial review of an adjudicator’s determination that a document sent by Bauer made a complaint of unjust dismissal.
The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application.
Master and Servant – Topic 8344.2
Employment and labour standards – Jurisdiction and powers of director, tribunal, referees or officers – Judicial review – Standard of review – A proceeding under s. 240 of the Canada Labour Code arose out of a complaint by Bauer concerning Seaspan’s termination of his employment – Seaspan applied for judicial review of an adjudicator’s determination that a document sent by Bauer made a complaint of unjust dismissal – The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that as a validly filed complaint was a condition precedent to the adjudicator’s jurisdiction, his decision was to be reviewed on a standard of correctness – However, the court stated that “as discussed in Byers Transport Ltd. [F.C.A.] there are two elements or components to a jurisdictional decision by an adjudicator under s. 240 of the Code: a legal one involving the interpretation of the section where deference is uncalled for and correctness as to the findings of jurisdictional facts where those findings must be based on substantial evidence calling for a degree of deference to those findings” – See paragraphs 21 to 22.
Master and Servant – Topic 8365
Employment and labour standards – Complaints – Form and contents – A proceeding under s. 240 of the Canada Labour Code arose out of a complaint by Bauer concerning Seaspan’s termination of his employment – Seaspan applied for judicial review of an adjudicator’s determination that a document sent by Bauer made a complaint of unjust dismissal – Seaspan contended that what was sent by Bauer was an inquiry about how to pursue a complaint for unlawful dismissal – The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the adjudicator was correct in concluding that the wording used by Bauer in the document was a complaint of unjust dismissal.
Cases Noticed:
Frechette v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. et al. (1984), 60 N.R. 177 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].
Beothuk Data Systems Ltd., Seawatch Division v. Dean et al., [1998] 1 F.C. 433; 218 N.R. 321 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].
Byers Transport Ltd. v. Kosanovich and Mellors (1995), 185 N.R. 107; 126 D.L.R.(4th) 679 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1996), 201 N.R. 400 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 21].
Canada Post Corp. v. Pollard, [1994] 1 F.C. 652; 161 N.R. 66; 109 D.L.R.(4th) 272 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].
Sedpex Inc. v. Browne and Devereaux, [1989] 2 F.C. 289; 25 F.T.R. 3 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 22].
Counsel:
Michael Hunter, for the applicant;
Michael Blaxland, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the applicant;
Forrest Gray Lewis & Blaxland, North Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent.
This application was heard on February 20, 2003, at Vancouver, British Columbia, before Lemieux, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on May 7, 2003.
