Federal Appeal


Referee’s analysis based on incorrect premise properly set aside

Appeal by employer from decision allowing application for judicial review of referee’s decision respecting payment order. Employer provided security services to Halifax airport pursuant to contract with airport authority. Contract was entered into on basis that they would be governed by provincial legislation respecting employment standards. During term of contract, Canada Industrial Relations Board certified Public Service Alliance of Canada as bargaining agent of employer’s employees at Halifax International Airport. Employee filed complaint, claiming he was not being paid for overtime or holiday pay in accordance with standards in Canada Labour Code (“CLC”). Inspector issued payment order. Referee allowed appeal of payment order, concluding that application of CLC to be suspended and employment contracts to be governed by Labour Standards Code (N.S.) (“LSC”), until existing contract expired, at which time CLC would govern. Application judge concluded that referee exceeded jurisdiction in suspending application of CLC. Appeal dismissed. Referee’s decision was unreasonable and was properly set aside. Referee’s analysis based on incorrect premise that employer was subject to provincial jurisdiction up until moment that that jurisdiction ousted by assertion of federal jurisdiction. As board found, contract employees of employer provided services which were vital and integral to operation of airport. During currency of contract, employer therefore subject to federal labour relations jurisdiction respecting operations and undertaking at airport. LSC never applied to employees of employer performing services at airport under contract.

Crouse v. Commissionaires Nova Scotia

(Jan. 10, 2012, F.C.A., Noel, Dawson and Trudel JJ.A., File No. A-63-11) Decision at 198 A.C.W.S. (3d) 678 was affirmed. 213 A.C.W.S. (3d) 111 (11 pp.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?