Brink's Canada Ltd. v. Canada Council of Teamsters
A-409-94
McDonald J.A.
9/8/95
15 pp.
Judicial review of CLRB decision granting application to expand Brink's employees' "Toronto/Peterborough" bargaining unit into "all Ontario" bargaining unit-Canada Labour Code, s. 32 allowing council of trade unions to apply as bargaining agent for bargaining unit-Several locals members of both Canada Council of Teamsters and Teamsters Joint Council-Whether Board failed to determine if majority of applicant's Ontario employees wanted to have Canada Council represent them; (2) whether Board's failure to follow self-created procedures violation of principles of natural justice-If jurisdiction at issue, standard of review correctness-If issue within jurisdiction, Board must have acted in patently unreasonable manner for Court to interfere-Application dismissed-(1) Certification of councils clearly within Board's jurisdiction-Situation involving two councils having same president, both "Teamster" councils, sharing significant number of members-Consideration of patent unreasonableness of Board's decision must be made with view toward Board's statutory responsibility to oversee, develop statutory regime expressed in Code-Board invested with mandate, expertise to decide such situations-Not acting irrationally when decided not to conduct fuller investigation into effect of Joint Council on membership of Canada Council-Properly determined, in accordance with s. 28(c) that majority of employees in "proposed all Ontario" bargaining unit wanted Canada Council to be bargaining agent-(2) Code not requiring Board to follow selfcreated procedures-Applicant having no legal right to demand Board follow these procedures-For doctrine of legitimate expectations to apply, evidence must establish existence of "regular practice"-Significant onus on applicant to prove procedure regular practice of Board over extended period of time-Example of such onus set out in F.A.I. Insurances Ltd. v. Winneke (1982), 151 C.L.R. 342 (Aust. H.C.)-Marceau J.A. in Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada et al. v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al. (1994), 174 N.R. 57 (F.C.A.), not finding doctrine of legitimate expectation not applicable to CLRB decisions-Doctrine of legitimate expectations applies only to procedural, not substantive, expectations-Applicant cannot legitimately expect Board to follow these procedures in every case-Evidence not establishing procedures regularly followed over extended period of time-Canada Labour Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2, ss. 18, 22 (as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 56), 28, 32-Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, ss. 18.1(4) (as enacted by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 5), 28.