[2012] 2 F.C.R. D-12
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Judicial review of intervener’s decision refusing to grant extension of time, dismissing applicants’ complaint made against respondents under Canada Labour Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. L‑2, s. 37—Applicants failing to ask intervener to exercise intervener’s reconsideration power under Code, s. 18 before filing present application—As preliminary issue, respondents arguing Court had to exercise discretion to refuse to entertain application, or refuse to grant remedy to applicants, because applicants failing to pursue adequate alternative remedy provided for by Code—Whether Court of Appeal having to exercise discretion to refuse to entertain application, or deny applicants remedy sought, because applicants failing to pursue adequate alternative remedy—Court of Appeal having discretion to refuse to grant remedy to applicant who has failed to pursue adequate alternative remedy—In determining whether statutory process constituting adequate alternative remedy, one important factor manner in which power likely exercised given burden of initial decision—Intervener’s case law showing consistent adherence to general principle that intervener’s decisions final and exercise of intervener’s reconsideration power requiring restraint—Difference between appeal process, power of reconsideration evident from Ellis‑Don Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), 2001 SCC 4, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 221—Ellis‑Don Ltd. establishing when Court of Appeal considering whether to exercise discretion, failure to seek reconsideration not barring application for judicial review, although possibly constituting relevant factor in determining whether to grant remedy—In present case, intervener’s case law suggesting intervener unlikely to reconsider decision to refuse extension of time—Court of Appeal therefore having to consider application, but application having to be dismissed because refusal to extend time limit reasonable—Application dismissed.
Buenaventura v. Telecommunications Workers Union (A‑268‑10, 2012 FCA 69, Sharlow, J.A., judgment dated March 1, 2012, 20 pp.)