Maritime Broadcasting System Limited (applicant) v. Canadian Media Guild (respondent) (A ; 2014 FCA 59)

Transcription

1 Maritime Broadcasting System Limited (applicant) v. Canadian Media Guild (respondent) (A ; 2014 FCA 59) Indexed As: Maritime Broadcasting System Ltd. v. Canadian Media Guild Federal Court of Appeal Stratas, Webb and Near, JJ.A. March 4, Summary: The Canada Industrial Relations Board certified the Canadian Media Guild as the bargaining agent for employees of Maritime Broadcasting System Ltd. employed in its Maritime News Network operation in Halifax. On a reconsideration, the Board reaffirmed its original decision. Maritime Broadcasting applied for judicial review of both decisions. Maritime Broadcasting submitted that the Board should have quashed its original decision because of procedural unfairness leading up to it. Maritime Broadcasting also alleged that the Board's reconsideration decision was unreasonable because it reached an outcome that was neither acceptable nor defensible on the facts and the law within the meaning of Dunsmuir (SCC 2008). The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application. Administrative Law - Topic 3202 Judicial review - General - Scope or standard of review - [See both Labour Law - Topic 576]. Administrative Law - Topic 9102 Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Standard of review - [See both Labour Law - Topic 576]. Administrative Law - Topic 9103 Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Scope of review - [See both Labour Law - Topic 576]. Labour Law - Topic 576 Labour relations boards and judicial review - Judicial review - Standard of review - The Maritime Broadcasting System's Maritime News Network - The Board rejected Maritime's argument that the position of "Manager-Maritime News Network" should be excluded from the bargaining unit, holding that the position did not involve the sort of independent decision-making authority that would warrant exclusion - On a reconsideration, the Board reaffirmed its original decision - Maritime applied for judicial review, arguing that the decisions were unreasonable - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application - The parties agreed that the standard of review on the substantive issues was reasonableness - The court stated that the range of acceptable and defensible options or margin of appreciation available to the Board in this case was relatively wide - The Board's decisions were reasonable - See paragraphs 33 to 45.

2 Labour Law - Topic 576 Labour relations boards and judicial review - Judicial review - Standard of review - The Maritime Broadcasting System's Maritime News Network - On a reconsideration, the Board reaffirmed its original decision - Maritime applied for judicial review, arguing that the Board should have quashed its original decision because of procedural unfairness leading up to it - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal substantially for the reasons given by the Board - The court discussed the standard of review for procedural fairness matters - Webb, J.A. (Near, J.A., concurring), held that the standard of review on the procedural fairness matters was correctness - Stratas, J.A., opined that the standard of review on the procedural matters in this case was reasonableness - See paragraphs 46 to 82. Labour Law - Topic 641 Labour relations boards and judicial review - Natural justice - Denial of - General (incl. standard of review) - [See second Labour Law - Topic 576]. Labour Law - Topic 4601 Unions - Certification or decertification - Judicial review - General - Standard of - [See both Labour Law - Topic 576]. Cases Noticed: New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [paras. 5, 79]. Algoma Central Marine v. Captains and Chiefs Association, 2010 CIRB 531, refd to. [para. 12]. Telecommunications Workers Union v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission et al., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 781; 183 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 24]. Telus Corporation, Re, 2000 CIRB 94, refd to. [para. 28]. Bowater Mersey Paper Co. v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 141 (2010), 289 N.S.R.(2d) 351; 916 A.P.R. 351; 2010 NSCA 19, refd to. [para. 29]. Abraham et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2012), 440 N.R. 201; 2012 FCA 266, refd to. [para. 34]. Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2013), 444 N.R. 120; 2013 FCA 75, refd to. [para. 34]. Canada (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities) v. Farwaha, [2014] N.R. TBEd. MR.012; 2014 FCA 56, refd to. [para. 34]. Mills v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (Ont.) (2008), 237 O.A.C. 71; 2008 ONCA 436, refd to. [para. 34]. McLean v. British Columbia Securities Commission, [2013] B.C.A.C. TBEd. DE.022; 452 N.R. 340; 2013 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 34]. Catalyst Paper Corp. v. North Cowichan (District), [2012] 1 S.C.R. 5; 425 N.R. 22; 316 B.C.A.C. 1; 537 W.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 35].

3 Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Human Rights Commission (N.S.) et al., [2012] 1 S.C.R. 364; 428 N.R. 107; 316 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 1002 A.P.R. 1; 2012 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 35]. Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Superintendent of Financial Services (Ont.) et al., [2004] 3 S.C.R. 152; 324 N.R. 259; 189 O.A.C. 201; 2004 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 46]. Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 50]. Québec (Ministre de la Justice) v. Therrien, J., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 3; 270 N.R. 1; 2001 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 50]. Therrien, Re - see Québec (Ministre de la Justice) v. Therrien, J. Knight v. Board of Education of Indian Head School Division No. 19, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 653; 106 N.R. 17; 83 Sask.R. 81, refd to. [para. 50]. Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654; 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 51]. Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 53]. Re:Sound v. Fitness Industry Council of Canada et al., [2014] N.R. TBEd. MR.009; 2014 FCA 48, consd. [para. 53], refd to. [para. 75]. Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [paras. 55, 76]. Prassard v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 560; 93 N.R 81, refd to. [para. 55]. Deloitte & Touche LLP v. Ontario Securities Commission, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 713; 310 N.R. 376; 179 O.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 55]. Bibeault et al. v. McCaffrey, Amalgamated Food and Allied Workers, Local P-405 and N.D.G. Meat Market Ltd., [1984] 1 S.C.R. 176; 52 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 55]. VIA Rail Canada Inc. v. Canadian Transportation Agency et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 650; 360 N.R. 1; 2007 SCC 15, refd to. [paras. 55, 76]. Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police and Ontario (Attorney General), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311; 23 N.R. 410, refd to. [para. 55]. Xwave Solutions Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works and Government Services) (2003), 310 N.R. 164; 2003 FCA 301, refd to. [para. 56]. Canadian Airport Workers Union v. Garda Security Screening Inc. et al., [2013] N.R. Uned. 50; 2013 FCA 106, refd to. [para. 56]. Syndicat des travailleuses et travailleurs de ADF-CSN v. Syndicat des employés de Au Dragon Forgé Inc., 2013 QCCA 793, refd to. [para. 56]. Ontario (Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services) v. Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board et al. (2006), 213 O.A.C. 169; 81 O.R.(3d) 419 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56]. Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539; 304 N.R. 76; 173 O.A.C. 38; 2003 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 57]. Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 249; 281 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 636 A.P.R. 201; 2002 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 57]. Almon Equipment Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2012] N.R. Uned. 170; 2012 FCA 318, refd to. [para. 58].

4 Benitez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2006), 290 F.T.R. 161; 2006 FC 461, affd. (2007), 366 N.R. 336; 2007 FCA 199, refd to. [para. 67]. Energy and Chemical Workers' Union and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., Re, [1986] 1 F.C. 103; 64 N.R. 126 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 67]. Human Rights Tribunal and Atomic Energy of Canada, Re - see Energy and Chemical Workers' Union and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., Re. Kozak et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2006), 349 N.R. 309; 2006 FCA 124, refd to. [para. 67]. Geza v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - see Kozak et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration). JP Morgan Asset Management (Canada) Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue et al. (2013), 450 N.R. 91; 2013 FCA 250, refd to. [para. 69]. Mavi et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2011] 2 S.C.R. 504; 417 N.R. 126; 279 O.A.C. 63; 2011 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 69]. Agraira v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al. (2013), 446 N.R. 65; 2013 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 69]. Mobil Oil Canada Ltd. et al. v. Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 202; 163 N.R. 27; 115 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 334; 360 A.P.R. 334, refd to. [para. 71]. Authors and Works Noticed: Brown, Donald J.M., and Evans, John M., Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada (1998) (Looseleaf), para. 3:6000 [para. 67]. Mullan, David J., Establishing the Standard of Review: The Struggle for Complexity? (2004), 17 Can. J. Admin. L. Prac. 59, pp. 86, 87 [para. 56]. Counsel: Bradley D.J. Proctor, for the applicant; Sean FitzPatrick, for the respondent. Solicitors of Record: McInnes Cooper, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the applicant; Cavalluzzo Shilton McIntyre Cornish LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent. This appeal was heard in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on October 30, 2013, before Stratas, Webb and Near, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered in Ottawa, Ontario, on March 4, 2014, including the following opinions: Stratas, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 73; Webb, J.A., concurring reasons (Near, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 74 to 82. Editor: Elizabeth M.A. Turgeon Application dismissed.

5 Administrative Law - Topic 3202 Judicial review - General - Scope or standard of review - The Canada Industrial Relations Board certified a bargaining agent for employees of the Maritime Broadcasting System's Maritime News Network - The Board rejected Maritime's argument that the position of "Manager-Maritime News Network" should be excluded from the bargaining unit, holding that the position did not involve the sort of independent decision-making authority that would warrant exclusion - On a reconsideration, the Board reaffirmed its original decision - Maritime applied for judicial review, arguing that the decisions were unreasonable - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application - The parties agreed that the standard of review on the substantive issues was reasonableness - The court stated that the range of acceptable and defensible options or margin of appreciation available to the Board in this case was relatively wide - The Board's decisions were reasonable - See paragraphs 33 to 45. Administrative Law - Topic 3202 Judicial review - General - Scope or standard of review - The Canada Industrial Relations Board certified a bargaining agent for employees of the Maritime Broadcasting System's Maritime News Network - On a reconsideration, the Board reaffirmed its original decision - Maritime applied for judicial review, arguing that the Board should have quashed its original decision because of procedural unfairness leading up to it - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal substantially for the reasons given by the Board - The court discussed the standard of review for procedural fairness matters - Webb, J.A. (Near, J.A., concurring), held that the standard of review on the procedural fairness matters was correctness - Stratas, J.A., opined that the standard of review on the procedural matters in this case was reasonableness - See paragraphs 46 to 82. Administrative Law - Topic 9102 Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Standard of review - The Canada Industrial System's Maritime News Network - The Board rejected Maritime's argument that the position of "Manager-Maritime News Network" should be excluded from the bargaining unit, holding that the position did not involve the sort of independent decision-making authority that would warrant exclusion - On a reconsideration, the Board reaffirmed its original decision - Maritime applied for judicial review, arguing that the decisions were unreasonable - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application - The parties agreed that the standard of review on the substantive issues was reasonableness - The court stated that the range of acceptable and defensible options or margin of appreciation available to the Board in this case was relatively wide - The Board's decisions were reasonable - See paragraphs 33 to 45. Administrative Law - Topic 9102 Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Standard of review - The Canada Industrial System's Maritime News Network - On a reconsideration, the Board reaffirmed its original decision - Maritime applied for judicial review, arguing that the Board should have quashed its original decision because of procedural unfairness leading up to it - The

6 Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal substantially for the reasons given by the Board - The court discussed the standard of review for procedural fairness matters - Webb, J.A. (Near, J.A., concurring), held that the standard of review on the procedural fairness matters was correctness - Stratas, J.A., opined that the standard of review on the procedural matters in this case was reasonableness - See paragraphs 46 to 82. Administrative Law - Topic 9103 Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Scope of review - The Canada Industrial System's Maritime News Network - The Board rejected Maritime's argument that the position of "Manager-Maritime News Network" should be excluded from the bargaining unit, holding that the position did not involve the sort of independent decision-making authority that would warrant exclusion - On a reconsideration, the Board reaffirmed its original decision - Maritime applied for judicial review, arguing that the decisions were unreasonable - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application - The parties agreed that the standard of review on the substantive issues was reasonableness - The court stated that the range of acceptable and defensible options or margin of appreciation available to the Board in this case was relatively wide - The Board's decisions were reasonable - See paragraphs 33 to 45. Administrative Law - Topic 9103 Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Scope of review - The Canada Industrial System's Maritime News Network - On a reconsideration, the Board reaffirmed its original decision - Maritime applied for judicial review, arguing that the Board should have quashed its original decision because of procedural unfairness leading up to it - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal substantially for the reasons given by the Board - The court discussed the standard of review for procedural fairness matters - Webb, J.A. (Near, J.A., concurring), held that the standard of review on the procedural fairness matters was correctness - Stratas, J.A., opined that the standard of review on the procedural matters in this case was reasonableness - See paragraphs 46 to 82. Labour Law - Topic 641 Labour relations boards and judicial review - Natural justice - Denial of - General (incl. standard of review) - The Canada Industrial Relations Board certified a bargaining agent for employees of the Maritime Broadcasting System's Maritime News Network - On a reconsideration, the Board reaffirmed its original decision - Maritime applied for judicial review, arguing that the Board should have quashed its original decision because of procedural unfairness leading up to it - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal substantially for the reasons given by the Board - The court discussed the standard of review for procedural fairness matters - Webb, J.A. (Near, J.A., concurring), held that the standard of review on the procedural fairness matters was correctness - Stratas, J.A., opined that the standard of review on the procedural matters in this case was reasonableness - See paragraphs 46 to 82. Labour Law - Topic 4601

7 Unions - Certification or decertification - Judicial review - General - Standard of - The Maritime Broadcasting System's Maritime News Network - The Board rejected Maritime's argument that the position of "Manager-Maritime News Network" should be excluded from the bargaining unit, holding that the position did not involve the sort of independent decision-making authority that would warrant exclusion - On a reconsideration, the Board reaffirmed its original decision - Maritime applied for judicial review, arguing that the decisions were unreasonable - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application - The parties agreed that the standard of review on the substantive issues was reasonableness - The court stated that the range of acceptable and defensible options or margin of appreciation available to the Board in this case was relatively wide - The Board's decisions were reasonable - See paragraphs 33 to 45. Labour Law - Topic 4601 Unions - Certification or decertification - Judicial review - General - Standard of - The Maritime Broadcasting System's Maritime News Network - On a reconsideration, the Board reaffirmed its original decision - Maritime applied for judicial review, arguing that the Board should have quashed its original decision because of procedural unfairness leading up to it - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal substantially for the reasons given by the Board - The court discussed the standard of review for procedural fairness matters - Webb, J.A. (Near, J.A., concurring), held that the standard of review on the procedural fairness matters was correctness - Stratas, J.A., opined that the standard of review on the procedural matters in this case was reasonableness - See paragraphs 46 to 82.