Preston v. Canada ( Attorney General )
T-2221-96
Jerome A.C.J.
30/10/97
4 pp.
Application for judicial review of two decisions by Human Resources Development-Applicant laid off by Newcap Broadcasting Inc. in Charlottetown-Received offer of employment from Skeena Broadcasters in Prince Rupert, to begin with them on October 2, 1995-Offer withdrawn-Applicant said to have been unjustly dismissed on December 22, 1995-Claim rejected as applicant had not worked for Skeena Broadcasters for twelve months before bringing complaint-Counsel for applicant favouring liberal interpretation of term "an employer" in Canada Labour Code, s. 240(1)(a)-Counsel for respondent countering apparent ambiguity in s. 240(1)(a) by referring to French version "pour le même employeur"-By stipulating claimant needs to have worked for "the same employer" for period of twelve months, Parliament barred applicant from seeking relief under Code-When text in one language could have many meanings but text in other language could only have one, meaning shared by both texts deemed to represent intention of Parliament-Courts must interpret ambiguity between two languages in favour of complainant so long as consistent with overriding purpose of legislation-Share meaning stipulates employees must have worked for twelve months for employer against whom they bring complaint-Threshold criteria at s. 240 serving no useful purpose if individuals could make claims against employers with whom they have mere passing relationship-Parliament intended "twelve consecutive months of continuous employment" to be served with same employer before claim could be brought under Canada Labour Code-Application dismissed-Canada Labour Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2, s. 240 (1)(a).