Federal Appeal

Labour and Employment Law

Public service employees

Appeal and judicial review

Applicant’s request for reconsideration was doomed to fail

On direction of Public Service Labour Relations Board resolving union’s unfair labour complaint, union and public service employer reached agreement that employees’ home contact information would be disclosed to union and this was incorporated into Board order. Applicant, who was dues-paying member of bargaining unit but not union member, took position that disclosure of her home contact information to union violated her privacy rights. Applicant’s application for judicial review was allowed, and she was granted intervenor status on redetermination that confirmed disclosure with provisions added. Applicant’s application for judicial review was dismissed and appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) was dismissed. Applicant’s request for reconsideration was refused by Board. Applicant applied for judicial review. Application dismissed. Board reasonably determined that applicant’s proposed “new” evidence, relating to federal legislative history surrounding issues of strike votes, final-offer votes and disclosure of home contact information, would not have material effect on outcome. Proposed evidence was not actually new as it had been publicly available for years. Board reasonably concluded that applicant was seeking to reopen SCC’s judgment on this matter, which definitely addressed her long-standing concern with disclosure of her home contact information to union. This concern remained at core of reconsideration request. Board considered relevant factors of importance of finality of its decisions, length of and explanation for delay, and absence of new evidence. Applicant’s request for reconsideration was doomed to fail in light of deficiencies of her proposed evidence and SCC precedent. Fact that presiding Board member had prior affiliation with different federal public service union did not raise reasonable apprehension of bias.

Bernard v. Canada Revenue Agency (2017), 2017 CarswellNat 659, 2017 FCA 40, J.D. Denis Pelletier J.A., Johanne Gauthier J.A., and David G. Near J.A. (F.C.A.); application for judicial review refused (2015), 2015 CarswellNat 3417, 2015 CarswellNat 3418, 2015 PSLREB 59, 2015 CRTEFP 59, Kate Rogers Member (Can. P.S.L.R.E.B.).

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?