Federal Appeal

Labour Relations

Judicial review

Adjudicator could have entertained request to correct order

Applicant represented interests of certain federal government lawyers. Applicant, on behalf of bargaining unit, was party to collective agreement with employer. Applicant filed policy grievance against employer, alleging violation of collective agreement in force at time. While adjudicator’s order provided that grievance was dismissed, part of grievance was resolved in favour of employees. Applicant noticed discrepancy and asked adjudicator to correct his order, but adjudicator declined to correct his order because he considered himself functus officio. Applicant brought applications for judicial review. Applications granted. By dismissing grievance, order effectively stated that all aspects of grievance set out in policy grievance presentation form had no merit, but plainly this was not case. Something on certain issue in grievance had been conceded before adjudicator in favour of employees represented by applicant. Applicant was successful on part of grievance. Adjudicator could have entertained applicant’s request to correct order. His decision not to do so on ground that he was legally barred from doing so could not stand.

Assn. of Justice Counsel v. Canada (Attorney General) (Feb. 18, 2016, F.C.A., David Stratas J.A., C. Michael Ryer J.A., and Yves de Montigny J.A., A-379-15, A-380-15) 263 A.C.W.S. (3d) 761.

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?