Federal court | Administrative Law | Judicial review | Nature of decision or decision maker under review
Challenged regulations established minimum number of flight attendants required on passenger airplanes in proportion to passenger seats. Union represented over 10,000 flight attendants. Union took position that challenged regulations were promulgated in breach of procedural fairness and in breach of union’s legitimate expectations that it would be meaningfully consulted. Union brought application for judicial review. Application dismissed. There was no duty of procedural fairness owed by Governor in Council in exercising its authority to promulgate regulations. Even if there was such duty, it was not breached. Union could not establish that it had legitimate expectation of consultation, nor could it establish that it was denied procedural fairness. Union had opportunity to participate in focused consultations regarding challenged regulations and its input was acknowledged.
Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Canada (Attorney General) (2018), 2018 CarswellNat 2252, 2018 CarswellNat 5123, 2018 FC 518, 2018 CF 518, Catherine Kane J. (F.C.).
