Federal Court


Applicant had not identified any exclusion of seasonal employees

Second judicial review of adjudicator’s decision regarding right to reimbursement of travel expenses for seasonal workers under terms of Isolated Post Policy (IPP). First adjudicator concluded that benefits claimed were only available during seasonal employment and not during off-season with only exception being when, for operational requirements, employer cannot grant employee’s request during his seasonal employment. First judicial review found initial adjudicator’s decision to be unreasonable and matter was referred back to another adjudicator to be decided in accordance with reasons of court. Judicial review dismissed. Applicant’s arguments that adjudicator failed to follow court’s directions because he did not follow modern approach to interpretation and allegedly ignored central aspect of case could not succeed. There was no such direction and moreover those matters were more properly question of reasonableness of decision. Adjudicator’s conclusion was that seasonal employees were “employees” under IPP even when seasonally laid off. His conclusion was based on such factors as apparent intent of IPP and absence of exclusion for seasonal employees, “application” s. outlining scope of that policy and definition of “employee” in the policy. Applicant had not identified any applicable exclusion of seasonal employees nor had it pointed to anything unreasonable in adjudicator’s reasoning.

Canada (Attorney General) v. Burden (Apr. 2, 2012, F.C., Phelan J., File No. T-1292-11) 217 A.C.W.S. (3d) 870 (16 pp.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is the highest number of lawyer candidates in the upcoming Law Society of Ontario Bencher election since 1995, but turn-out is declining. Do you think voting should be mandatory for all lawyers and paralegals in this election?