LABOUR RELATIONS |
Métis Nation of Ontario v. Przybyszewski
T-1922-02
2004 FC 977, Russell J.
9/7/04
43 pp.
Judicial review of Adjudicator's decision under Canada Labour Code, Division XIV-Part III--Respondent filed complaint for unjust dismissal against applicant under Code-- Applicant Ontario corporation formed to promote interests, rights of Métis people living in Ontario--Applicant challenged Adjudicator's jurisdiction to hear matter on basis applicant's labour relations fall under provincial jurisdiction-- Adjudicator concluded employment relationship between applicant, respondent integral part of federal jurisdiction over "Indians" recognized in Constitution Act, 1867, s. 91(24), relationship thus came under Canada Labour Code and Adjudicator had jurisdiction--Applicant attacking decision on basis Adjudicator (1) acted without jurisdiction because no notice of constitutional question pursuant to Federal Court Act, s. 57(1); (2) erred in law in concluding had jurisdiction on basis of alleged agreement between parties that Métis "Indians" for purposes of Constitution Act, 1867, s. 91(24); (3) made erroneous finding of fact when concluded Aboriginal Healing and Wellness Strategy (Strategy) closely linked to "Métiness"--(1) Federal Court Act, s. 57(2) does not impose obligation on any party to serve notice of constitutional question, but provides no consequences on impugned Act, regulation if no notice given--Here, Adjudicator asked to decide whether specific undertaking subject to provisions of Code, not whether Code invalid, inapplicable, inoperative-- Consequently, decision could not be attacked on ground no notice given--(2) Adjudicator made clear decision Métis are "Indians" founded exclusively on parties' agreement-- Applicant argued before Court that (i) did not concede Métis are "Indians"; (ii) agreement cannot found federal jurisdiction; (iii) Adjudicator erred because no factual record to support conclusion Métis are "Indians"--(i) Court concluded Adjudicator did what applicant asked it to do, i.e. made no finding as to whether Métis are "Indians"--(ii) Because issue of whether Métis are "Indians" not raised before Adjudicator, applicant could not raise it before Court--Court specified not case of parties consenting to jurisdiction where none exists, but case of where parties requesting Adjudicator to make finding on basis of functional analysis of undertaking alone--(iii) No factual record necessary where issue conceded or agreed to be left out--(3) Adjudicator correctly stated law, concluded Strategy integral part of primary federal jurisdiction --Application of functional test to determine whether undertaking, business within legislative authority of Parliament (Four B Manufacturing Ltd. v. United Garment Workers of America et al., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1031)--Applicant engaged in business of promoting cultural, political, economic well-being of Métis--Sufficient evidence to conclude business within federal jurisdiction--Application dismissed--Canada Labour Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2--Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3 (U.K.) (as am. by Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.), Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982, Item 1) [R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 5], s. 91(24)--Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 57(2) (as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 19).