Digests

Labour Relations

Judicial review of appeals officer’s interlocutory decision in context of complaint by respondent under occupational health and safety provisions of Canada Labour Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2 accepting respondent’s appeal as timely under Code, s. 146(1)—Issue whether appeals officer erring when interpreting time limits for such appeals—Respondent alleging appellant violating several provisions of Code by excluding their health, safety representatives from participating in process implemented by appellant to assess safety of delivery to rural mail boxes—Investigating health and safety officer (HSO) concluding appellant violating Code provisions, issuing direction on December 8, 2008—Respondent filing appeal on January 30, 2009, in excess of statutory limit of 30 days from confirmation of direction due to closure of offices for holiday season—Appeals officer concluding appeal within 30-day limit because decision not coming to attention of respondent until January 5, 2009—Contrary to Appeal officer’s interpretation, no indication whatsoever that confirmation having to do with reception of communication of direction to concerned parties—Relevant question not when direction confirmed in writing to respondent, but rather when issued, confirmed by HSO issuing direction—Act, s. 146(1) aiming to provide some foreseeability in appeal procedure, setting out clearly the point at which direction issued by health and safety officer becoming final—Appeal officer’s interpretation of Act, s. 146(1) would nullify foreseeability purpose of time limitation period—Interpreting phrase “confirmed in writing” as referring to moment when direction confirmed, received by respondent falling outside range of acceptable statutory interpretation—Accordingly, decision meeting neither test of reasonableness nor that of correctness—Application allowed.

Canada Post Corporation v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers (T-743-09, 2010 FC 154, de Montigny J., judgment dated February 16, 2010, 18 pp.)