Con-Way Central Express Inc. v. Armstrong
T-281-97
Muldoon J.
29/12/97
14 pp.
Application for judicial review of decision made on preliminary motion by respondent adjudicator-Adjudicator appointed by Minister of Labour under Canada Labour Code decided he would proceed to adjudicate complaint of unjust dismissal-Unless special circumstances exist, judicial review of interlocutory decision should not be taken-Present application coming within "special circumstances" as related to question of jurisdiction-Whether adjudicator had jurisdiction to hear complaint-Employer contended, by way of preliminary motion, complaint not arbitrable, as complainant had entered into binding settlement, executed full release of all claims against employer-Privative clause in Act, s. 243(2) precludes Court from prohibiting, restraining adjudicator under s. 242 proceedings-Notwithstanding privative clauses, tribunal can be subject to judicial review where jurisdiction exceeded-Effects of s. 168 on jurisdiction of adjudicator appointed under Code, s. 242(2) explained in National Bank of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Labour), [1997] 3 F.C. 727 (T.D.)-If contract more beneficial to employee than rights under Code, Part III, contract will govern-If less beneficial, Part III will govern-Whether settlement or Code less beneficial to complainant-By application of Code, s. 168, waiver of right to adjudication of no force and effect-Adjudicator made no error in determining he had jurisdiction to hear complaint for reasons outlined in National Bank-Whether settlement agreement or Code should govern-If Code affords better right, adjudicator has jurisdiction-Parliament intended to make it extremely difficult to waive basic guarantees contained in Code-Application dismissed-Canada Labour Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2, ss. 168, 242 (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (1st Supp.), c. 9, s. 16), 243.