Federal Court

Civil Procedure

Connection of union with workers and industry tenuous at best

Motion by Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to strike out application by applicant union USW for leave and judicial review of decision or decisions of officer or officers of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, to issue Labour Market Opinions (“LMO”) under s. 203 of Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (Can.), allegedly determining that offers of employment by Royal Bank of Canada (“RBC”), and entities known as IGate, to unknown number of workers from India to work in regulatory and financial applications in Toronto, Ontario, would likely result in neutral or positive effect on labour market in Canada. Minister brought motion to strike out application on ground applicant lacked standing to bring application. Applicant was not person directly affected by LMO and did not represent any workers at RBC. Nature of standing asserted by applicant was public interest standing. Motion granted. While application raised serious issue no constitutional issues or challenges to underlying legislation were raised. Connection of applicant union with workers and industry at issue was tenuous, at best. Issue was judicial review of single LMO, not broad-ranging enquiry into administration of foreign workers programme. Applying “purposive” approach, even in liberal and generous manner, with respect to matters that were to be judicially determined, interest of applicant union was too remote. Court declined in these circumstances to exercise discretion and grant applicant union public interest standing.

USW v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (May. 13, 2013, F.C., Roger T. Hughes J., File No. IMM-2755-13) 228 A.C.W.S. (3d) 668.

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?