Date: 19990618
Docket: T-1620-98
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, THE 18th DAY OF JUNE 1999
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DENAULT
IN THE MATTER OF the Canada Labour Code,
R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2, and a complaint of
unjust dismissal made pursuant to
section 240 thereof
BETWEEN: TELEGLOBE CANADA INC.
Applicant
AND
VIATEUR LAROUCHE
-and-
JOANNE FOX
Respondents
ORDER
THE COURT:
| - ALLOWS the applicant"s application for judicial review of that part of adjudicator Viateur Larouche"s decision of July 10, 1998, in which he ordered the applicant to pay the respondent the equivalent of eight months" notice plus benefits described therein; |
| - DECLARES void, quashes and reverses that part of the decision, including the part in which "[TRANSLATION] the Tribunal reserves its jurisdiction over the quantum of this matter if necessary"; |
| - WITHOUT COSTS. |
Pierre Denault
Judge
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
Date: 19990618
Docket: T-1620-98
IN THE MATTER OF the Canada Labour Code,
R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2, and a complaint of
unjust dismissal made pursuant to
section 240 thereof
BETWEEN: TELEGLOBE CANADA INC.
Applicant
AND
VIATEUR LAROUCHE
-and-
JOANNE FOX
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER
DENAULT J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of July 10, 1998, by an adjudicator appointed under sections 242 et seq. of the Canada Labour Code,1 who dismissed Joanne Fox"s complaint of unjust dismissal and ordered Teleglobe Canada Inc. to pay Ms. Fox eight months" wages in lieu of notice plus benefits owed to her.
[2] The issue is very straightforward: whether the adjudicator"after holding that the complaint of unjust dismissal should be dismissed"had jurisdiction to order compensation.
[3] The applicant argues that the adjudicator"s decision clearly dismissed the respondent"s complaint of unjust dismissal and referred to the unanimous case law recognizing that an adjudicator has no jurisdiction to grant any relief after holding that a complaint of unjust dismissal should be dismissed.
[4] The respondent argues that the adjudicator"s decision is an indivisible whole and must be viewed in its entirety in the context of fair and reasonable treatment. If the Court were to find that the adjudicator had erred in the exercise of his jurisdiction, the respondent suggests that the matter should be referred back to him for him to exercise it again.
[5] It is important to note that the respondent has not sought judicial review of the adjudicator"s main finding that under the circumstances, the dismissal was just. The employer"s application for judicial review concerns only that part of the decision that grants eight months" compensation and related benefits. Thus the Court cannot, as the respondent claimed, refer the matter back to the adjudicator for rehearing if it finds that he exceeded his jurisdiction.
[6] In the case at bar, the adjudicator clearly exceeded his jurisdiction by ordering payment of compensation to the respondent after holding that the complaint of unjust dismissal should be dismissed. Once he held that the respondent"s dismissal was not unjust, the adjudicator became functus officio and had no jurisdiction to issue a compensation order.2
[7] The adjudicator"s jurisdiction comes from subsection 242(3) of the Canada Labour Code , which authorizes him to decide whether the dismissal was unjust. Only after holding that the dismissal was unjust can he use his powers under subsection 242(4) of the Code, namely pay the person compensation, reinstate the person in his employ, or do any other like thing that is equitable. In the case at bar, after holding that the dismissal was not unjust, he could not act on the authority of article 2091 of the Civil Code to grant the defendant compensation, without exceeding his jurisdiction in the process.
[8] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is allowed, without costs.
Pierre Denault
Judge
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
June 18, 1999
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: T-1620-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: IN THE MATTER OF the Canada Labour
Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2, and a
complaint of unjust dismissal made
pursuant to section 240 thereof
TELEGLOBE CANADA INC.
Applicant
AND
VIATEUR LAROUCHE
-and-
JOANNE FOX
Respondents
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: June 18, 1999
REASONS FOR ORDER BY DENAULT J.
DATED: June 18, 1999
APPEARANCES:
Louis Bernier/ for the applicant
Anne-Julie Perreault
Joanne Fox respondent
SOLICITOR OF RECORD:
Martineau Walker for the applicant
Montréal, Quebec
| FEDERAL COURT"TRIAL DIVISION |
| Date: 19990618 |
| Docket: T-1620-98 |
| IN THE MATTER OF the Canada Labour Code, |
| R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2, and a complaint of |
| unjust dismissal made pursuant to |
| section 240 thereof |
| BETWEEN: TELEGLOBE CANADA INC. |
| Applicant |
| AND |
| VIATEUR LAROUCHE |
| -and- |
| JOANNE FOX |
| Respondents |
| REASONS FOR ORDER |
__________________
2 Royal Bank of Canada v. Procaccini (1987), 24 Admin. L.R. 319; Thorsen v. Silk FM Broadcasting Ltd. (1991), 139 N.R. 72; Transport Georges Léger Inc. v. Goupil (1993) 72 F.T.R. 152; Aziz v. Telesat Canada (1995), 104 F.T.R. 267.