LABOUR RELATIONS
Judicial review of Canada Industrial Relations Board decision by which Board determined intent behind certificate of accreditation granted to respondent January 31, 1995— Impugned decision is initial decision by three members of Board dated September 16, 2003—Employer asked Board to reconsider its decision, based on fact initial decision “contained errors of law which cast serious doubt on the interpretation of the Code by the Board”—Three other members of Board dismissed application to reconsider on merits—Party challenging only decision to reconsider cannot make use of challenge to call initial decision into question— Situation reversed in case at bar, as employer only challenging initial decision, with result decision to reconsider, which was also unfavourable, beyond judicial review by this Court— Clearly can only intervene in impugned decision if latter patently unreasonable, and rejection of initial decision would not remove decision to reconsider, which if not challenged can be set up against employer—Reconsideration being sought in case at bar pursuant to Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations s. 44(b), 2001, namely “any error of law or policy that casts serious doubt on the interpretation of the Code by the Board”—Nature and effect of decision concerning application for reconsideration will vary depending on object sought by applicant, fate of reconsidera-tion application— When Board dismisses reconsideration application because it refuses to hear it on merits, initial decision will remain intact and must be directly challenged in Federal Court of Appeal whatever party chooses to do regarding decision to reconsider —What is situation when Board in its reconsideration decision affirms merits of initial decision in all respects?—Two decisions rendered on same initial application, and even if those decisions concurrent, nonetheless distinct—Even though one does not quash the other since it affirms it, it nevertheless replaces the other for purposes of judicial review since latter deals with same questions of law or policy finally resolved by review panel—It follows reconsideration decision must then be challenged directly—Legal certainty ill‑served if two potentially contradictory decisions allowed to coexist, one by this Court in judicial review of initial decision and other by Board in reconsideration of that decision—Application for judicial review purely moot in nature and nothing to justify Court agreeing to hear it nevertheless in exercise of its discretion— Threshold of deference with respect to decisions by Board, especially within this field of expertise, determining intent of certification, at its highest level—Reconsideration decision could in no way be described as patently unreasonable— Application dismissed—Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2001, SOR/2001‑520, s. 44— Canada Labour Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. I‑2.
Vidéotron Télécom Ltée v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada (A‑482‑03, 2005 FCA 90, Décary J.A., judgment dated 8/3/05, 8 pp.)