Supreme Court

Administrative Law

Board not required to explicitly address all possible shades of meaning of provisions

Applicant carried on business in general construction sector. Labour Relations Board concluded that applicant was employer under s. 176(1)(b) of Labour Relations Code (Alta.), and that applicant and union local had agreed to adopt some of provisions of registered employers’ organization collective agreements to which union local was party. Board decided that, pursuant to s. 178 of code, applicant subject to terms of agreements. Applicant’s application for judicial review of board’s decision dismissed but its subsequent appeal was allowed. Employers’ association’s appeal to Supreme Court of Canada allowed. Board considered relevant provisions of code and facts presented by parties, interpreted code reasonably and came to reasonable conclusions. Court of Appeal focused on assertion that board failed to give proper consideration to interplay between ss. 176(1)(b) and 178 of code and to different meanings that could be ascribed to those provisions but board not required to explicitly address all possible shades of meaning. Board’s decision, viewed as whole in context of record, reasonable.

Construction Labour Relations Assn. (Alberta) v. Driver Iron Inc. (Nov. 29, 2012, S.C.C., McLachlin C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis JJ., File No. 34205) Decision at 198 A.C.W.S. (3d) 825 was reversed. 221 A.C.W.S. (3d) 248.

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?