Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Administrative law – Judicial review – Whether Commissioner Chaumont’s interpretation of Superior Court’s decision in Chambly v. Gagnon dated December 13, 1995, as upheld in Supreme Court’s decision in that case (Chambly (City) v. Gagnon, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 8), must be accepted and restored in light of required deference to decision of specialized tribunal to which legislature has granted exclusive jurisdiction to dispose of complaint for dismissal – Principles from Chambly v. Gagnon – Cities and Towns Act, CQLR, c. C-19, ss. 71, 72 – Charter of Ville de Montréal, CQLR, c. C-11.4, s. 185.

The applicant was hired as Clerk of the city of Montreal under a contract dated October 23, 2001 for a fixed term of five years. When the contract expired, the city advised the applicant that her contract would be terminating. The applicant filed a complaint with the Commission des relations du travail (“Commission”) under s. 72 of the Cities and Towns Act, R.S.Q., c. C-19 (“C.T.A.”). The city filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint, because the term of the applicant’s contract had quite simply expired. She had not therefore been “dismiss[ed]” within the meaning of s. 71 C.T.A.; rather, her contract for a fixed term had terminated.

Commissioner Denis dismissed the applicant’s complaint on the basis that the termination of her employment was due to the expiration of the contract, since the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract could not on its own constitute dismissal from employment. The Superior Court, on an application for judicial review, observed that the applicant had been unable to call witnesses even though she had asked the Commission for permission to do so, and that the rule of audi alteram partem had accordingly been violated. The court quashed the Commission’s decision and remanded the case for a decision by another commissioner. The Court of Appeal dismissed a motion for leave to appeal on the basis that the applicant should be allowed to adduce her evidence and that such evidence could help in deciding the merits of the case. The Supreme Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal filed by the city of Montreal, and the case was accordingly remanded for a decision by another commissioner of the Commission des relations du travail.

---

---