Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20010402

Docket: A-215-00

Neutral reference: 2001 FCA 98

Coram:             DESJARDINS J.A.

DÉCARY J.A.

NOËL J.A.

Between:

                                                        ANDREW FRÈVE

                                                                                                                                   Plaintiff

                                                                    AND

                                       ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

                                          (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada)

                                                                                                                               Defendant

                                              Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec

                                                    on Monday, April 2, 2001

                                     Judgment from the bench at Montréal, Quebec

                                                    on Monday, April 2, 2001

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:                       DESJARDINS J.A.



Date: 20010402

Docket: A-215-00

Neutral reference: 2001 FCA 98

Coram:             DESJARDINS J.A.

DÉCARY J.A.

NOËL J.A.

Between:                                         ANDREW FRÈVE

                                                                                                                                   Plaintiff

                                                                    AND

                                       ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

                                          (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada)

                                                                                                                               Defendant

                               REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

                                    (Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec

                                                    on Monday, April 2, 2001)

DESJARDINS J.A.


[1]        The plaintiff is seeking judicial review of a decision by the Public Service Staff Relations Board ("the Board"), cases 149-2-217 and 166-2-28643, Marguerite-Marie Galipeau, d.c., which dismissed a motion for an extension of time to file a grievance that the employer had not observed the Workforce Adjustment Directive (Treasury Board Secretariat, July 16, 1996). See Early Departure Incentive Program Order, P.C. 1995-1086, and Public Sector Compensation Act, S.C. 1991, c. 30, as amended by the Budget Implementation Act, 1995, S.C. 1995, c. 17.

[2]        The power to extend a deadline is set out in s. 63 of the Public Service Staff Relations Board Regulations and Rules of Procedure (1993), SOR/93-348, which reads as follows:


63. Notwithstanding anything in this Part, the times prescribed by this Part or provided for in a grievance procedure contained in a collective agreement or in an arbitral award for the doing of any act, the presentation of a grievance at any level or the providing or filing of any notice, reply or document may be extended, either before or after the expiration of those times

(a) by agreement between parties; or

(b)    by the Board, on the application of an employer, an employee or a bargaining agent, on such terms and conditions as the Board considers advisable.


63. Par dérogation à toute autre disposition de la présente partie, les délais prévus aux termes de la présente partie, d'une procédure applicable aux griefs énoncée dans une convention collective ou d'une décision arbitrale, pour l'accomplissement d'un acte, la présentation d'un grief à un palier ou la remise ou le dépôt d'un avis, d'une réponse ou d'un document peuvent être prorogés avant ou après leur expiration:

(a) soit par une entente entre les parties;

(b)    soit par la Commission, à la demande de l'employeur, du fonctionnaire ou de l'agent négociateur selon les modalités que la Commission juge indiquées.


[3] This power is discretionary in nature and must be exercised judicially. (See Reza v. Canada, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 394, at 404).

[4] There is nothing in the record to indicate that the deputy chairperson took irrelevant facts into account. On the contrary, she considered applicable factors, namely whether the grievance had a serious chance of succeeding and the reasons given by the plaintiff to justify his delay.


[5] It is clear from the reasons for her decision that she was not persuaded either by the chances of success of the grievance or the reasons given by the plaintiff to justify his delay.

[6] The application for judicial review will be dismissed with costs.

                Alice    Desjardins               

                              J.A.

Certified true translation

Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.


           FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                      APPEAL DIVISION

                                                  Date: 20010402

                                                Docket: A-215-00

Between:

ANDREW FRÈVE

                                                               Plaintiff,

AND

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

(Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada)

                                                           Defendant

              REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OF THE COURT


                                           FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                                       APPEAL DIVISION

                      NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

FILE:                                                        A-215-00

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                ANDREW FRÈVE

                                                                                                                                     Plaintiff

AND

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

(Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada)

                                                                                                                                 Defendant

PLACE OF HEARING:                          Montréal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING:                            April 2, 2001

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: DESJARDINS J.A.

DATED:                                                   April 2, 2001

APPEARANCES:

Sean T. McGee                                         FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Marie-Claude Couture                               FOR THE DEFENDANT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:                                                                                              

Nelligan, Power                                         FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Ottawa, Ontario

Morris Rosenberg                                      FOR THE DEFENDANT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Montréal, Quebec


Date: 20010402

Docket: A-215-00

MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, APRIL 2, 2001

Coram:             DESJARDINS J. A.

DÉCARY J.A.

NOËL J.A.

Between:

                                                        ANDREW FRÈVE

                                                                                                                                   Plaintiff

                                                                    AND

                                       ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

                                          (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada)

                                                                                                                               Defendant

                                                             JUDGMENT

                             The application for judicial review is dismissed with costs.

                Alice Desjardins                

                            J.A.

                                                                                                                                               

Certified true translation

Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.