Air Canada v. Davis
T-2972-92
Muldoon J.
4/3/94
16 pp.
Privative provision in Canada Labour Code, s. 243-Application for judicial review of adjudicator's decision based on: (1) lack of jurisdiction; (2) decision based on erroneous finding of fact, made in perverse manner; (3) failure to consider legal authorities submitted-Adjudicator had to resolve whether respondent unjustly dismissed-Canada Labour Code, s. 243 providing adjudicator's orders final, not reviewable by any court-Privative provision gradually diluted in case law to point that where issue goes to administrative tribunal's jurisdiction, standard governing judicial review of tribunal's order one of correctness: Canadian Pacific Air Lines v. Canadian Air Line Pilots Assn., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 724-Labour Code, s. 242(3.1) prescribing jurisdiction where adjudicator must first determine if complainant had been laid off, and if so, whether because of lack of work, or because discontinuance of function; these issues central to adjudicator's jurisdiction even to consider complaint-Adjudicator declined to exercise preliminary jurisdiction by declining "to consider whether complainant laid off because of factors perceived"-Notion of lay-off of Code importing notion of no blame on employee's part; hard times or change of employer's business operations-Respondent indeed laid off within meaning of s. 242(3.1)(a) and consequently, adjudicator proceeded without jurisdiction to consider complaint under s. 242(3)-Application allowed-Adjudicator's decision quashed; immediate effect to dismiss respondent's complaint-Canada Labour Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2, ss. 242(3.1)(a) (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (1st Supp.), c. 9, s. 16), 243.