Mihalicz v. Royal Bank of Canada
T-176-98
Muldoon J.
21/12/98
18 pp.
Application for judicial review of interim decision made by adjudicator under Canada Labour Code, s. 240 refusing to grant non-suit against respondent's case for dismissal of applicant for just cause-Applicant employed with respondent, Royal Bank of Canada, for 28 years before termination on November 25, 1996-On September 22, 1992, applicant received "final written warning" for failing to comply with proper guidelines, procedures, that is issuing letter of credit resulting in unauthorized credit excess-Received second warning on March 6, 1995 in relation to another file in which advanced $90,000 to client without obtaining proper security-In 1996, Bank aware of several errors, "deficiencies" in applicant's work with regard to administration of group of companies known as "California Fitness" connection-Applicant also had administrative problems with regard to KTB Lifestyles Ltd., another company in California Fitness connection-Several meetings held with applicant to review situation, to afford him chance to provide explanation for problems-On November 25, 1996, applicant received brief letter of dismissal signed by Doug Finnie, bank manager-Complaint for unjust dismissal registered by applicant under Code, s. 240-Adjudicator appointed under s. 242 to hear applicant's complaint-S. 243 operating as privative clause, protecting Adjudicator's decision from review-Adjudicator rejecting applicant's contention respondent's failure to call Anne Lockie, Bank senior vicepresident, general manager, to testify as to reasons for applicant's termination fatal to case-Accepting respondent's evidence at face value, concluding necessary facts for prima facie case made out-Evidence demonstrating applicant terminated because of failure to adhere to established lending guidelines-Bank's documentation terminating applicant consistent with testimony as to reasons for applicant's dismissal-Adjudicator's final decision upholding Bank's prima facie case for dismissal of applicant for cause-Court will depart from protective provisions of s. 243 only if adjudicator has so patently, unreasonably stepped outside jurisdiction conferred by Parliament that he can be perceived to have perverted, evaded, avoided, contradicted Parliament's will-Nature of judicial review to determine whether open to tribunal, adjudicator to make decision it did on basis of evidence before it-Patently unreasonable test requiring courts to accord curial deference to adjudicator's decision-S.C.C.'s decision in Toronto (City) Board of Education v. O.S.S.T.F., District 15, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 487, holding, in labour relations context, standard of patent unreasonableness most appropriate one-Adjudicator denied applicant's motion for non-suit on basis respondent Bank had established prima facie case-Decision based on evidence before her-Bank's disciplinary procedures followed-Ms. Lockie not decisionmaker-Lindberg, Finnie, who knew applicant personally, observed lack of competent judgment in performance of work, compositely "decision-maker"-Adjudicator correct to decline blaming employer for trying to rehabilitate applicant from errors between 1992 and November 1996-Adjudicator's performance of duties, decision, order fair, reasonable-Application dismissed-Canada Labour Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2, ss. 240 (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (1st Supp.), c. 9, s. 15), 242 (as am. idem, s. 16), 243.