Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

Midland Courier v. Gomes

T-567-93

Rouleau J.

25/1/94

7 pp.

Application to quash Adjudicator's decision having jurisdiction to adjudicate unjust dismissal complaint -- Respondent Gomes manager of Moncton branch of Midland Courier for last three years of employment -- Informed on number of occasions management not satisfied with her performance -- Gomes agreeing to severance package as would have been dismissed for cause -- Signing release acknowledging receipt of $4,606.68 in consideration for release of employer from all actions for termination of employment -- Undertaking not to commence any proceedings or complaint in respect of such termination -- Release not giving reasons for termination -- Gomes filing complaint with Labour Canada under Canada Labour Code, s. 240 alleging dismissal unjust, without cause, or prior notification -- Employer objecting to Adjudicator's jurisdiction on ground Gomes holding "managerial position", and precluded from filing complaint according to terms of release -- Adjudicator holding Gomes not "manager" within meaning of Code, Division XIV, release valid and binding, Gomes in fact dismissed for cause -- Application allowed -- Court's intervention justified where administrative tribunal protected by privative clause if adjudicator exceeding jurisdiction or otherwise committing error in jurisdiction: Caimaw v. Paccar of Canada Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 983 -- Alleged error herein one requiring Court's intervention -- Employer and employee can come to arrangement concerning conditions and consequences under which contract of employment to be ruptured -- Evidence not supporting Adjudicator's finding employment relationship terminated prior to signing of release -- Employer giving Gomes alternative of signing release or be fired for cause -- Employment relationship terminated when signed release -- Canada Labour Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2, ss. 230, 235 (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 32, s. 41), 240 (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (1st Supp.), c. 9, s. 15), 242, 243.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.