Federal Appeal

Labour Relations

Adjudicator had no legal option but to decline jurisdiction

Respondent hired applicant in 2006 under program for persons with disabilities. Applicant’s employment was terminated in 2010. Applicant filed complaint alleging unjust dismissal under Canada Labour Code and he filed complaint alleging discrimination on basis of disability under Canadian Human Rights Act. Adjudicator was appointed under Code to hear unjust dismissal complaint, but respondent challenged adjudicator’s jurisdiction. Parties reached agreement that stayed unjust dismissal complaint. Applicant agreed that adjudicator did not have jurisdiction to hear unjust dismissal complaint unless commission referred complaint back to him. Commission dismissed human rights complaint. Applicant then sought to have unjust dismissal complaint under Code determined by adjudicator. Adjudicator found he lacked jurisdiction to consider complaint and complaint was dismissed. Applicant applied for judicial review. Application was dismissed. Applicant appealed. Appeal dismissed. Adjudicator did not err in applying agreement between parties to decline jurisdiction. Adjudicator was correct to find that question of jurisdiction under s. 242(3.1)(b) of Code prevented him from hearing case and determining procedure to be followed pursuant to s. 242(2)(b). Adjudicator had no legal option but to decline jurisdiction. Judge rendered thorough and well-reasoned decision. There were no breaches of natural justice or procedural fairness. There was no basis to justify setting aside adjudicator’s decision.

Joshi v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (Apr. 23, 2015, F.C.A., M. Nadon J.A., Eleanor R. Dawson J.A., and Richard Boivin J.A., File No. A-363-14) Decision at 242 A.C.W.S. (3d) 623 was affirmed.  252 A.C.W.S. (3d) 817.

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?