Case information

Employment law — Unjust dismissal — Administrative law — Judicial Review — Does an employer invoking economic reasons automatically mean that the employee loses the protections of s. 240 of the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2? — What must a federally regulated employer do in order to benefit from an exception under s. 242(3.1)(a) of the Canada Labour Code? — Does an employer invoking s. 242(3.1)(a) have to make reasonable efforts to maintain the employment of an employee before the employer can use the exception under s. 242(3.1)(a) — Does the Federal Court’s history of replacing the opinions of arbitrators with its own on questions pertaining to s. 242(3.1)(a) respect Parliament’s intentions for the unjust dismissal provisions? — Has the Federal Court’s history of replacing the opinions of arbitrators with their own deprived workers of the rights that Parliament intended for them to have?

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.

In November 2018, the applicant employee filed an unjust dismissal complaint under s. 240 of the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2 (“Code”) after he was notified by the respondent employer that his position was being discontinued. An adjudicator appointed under the Code dismissed the applicant’s complaint of unjust dismissal. The adjudicator determined that the limitation under s. 242(3.1)(a) of the Code applied such that the complaint under s. 240 could not be considered.

The Federal Court dismissed the applicant’s application for judicial review. It found that the applicant had not satisfied it that the adjudicator’s conclusions were irrational or arbitrary or that the adjudicator’s decision was unreasonable under established principles. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal finding that the applicant’s right to procedural fairness was not breached and that the adjudicator’s decision was reasonable.