Express Havre St Pierre Ltée. v. Deblois

Express Havre St Pierre Ltée. v. Deblois

The Court held that it can order enforcement by equivalence of the reinstatement order filed by adjudicator Fortier on March 16, 1999 because the order filed in the Federal Court has the effect of a judgment, equity requires a remedy where reinstatement cannot be effected, and calculation and payment of compensation is the appropriate means to enforce the reinstatement order; the filing of a second unjust dismissal complaint did not amount to waiver of the reinstatement order. The Court allowed the motion and appointed a judge to determine compensation by a specially managed proceeding.

Citation
2001 FCT 951
Parties
Plaintiff Respondent: Express Hâvre St-Pierre Ltée; Defendant Applicant: Denis Leblanc; Defendant Mis En Cause: Robert Deblois
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Enforcement of Adjudicator Order Under Canada Labour Code (unjust Dismissal) / Motion for Enforcement by Equivalence Decided; Judge Appointed to Determine Damages by Specially Managed Proceeding
Outcome
Motion for enforcement by equivalence allowed
Legal Topics
Reinstatement, Enforcement by Equivalence, Remedies in Equity, Jurisdiction of Adjudicators, Federal Court Rules Ss.423 431
Source Language
English
Labour Law Administrative Law Federal Court Procedure Enforcement of Orders Reinstatement Enforcement by Equivalence Remedies in Equity Jurisdiction of Adjudicators +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Express Hâvre St-Pierre Ltée

Plaintiff Respondent

Denis Leblanc

Defendant Applicant

Robert Deblois

Defendant Mis En Cause

Procedural Posture

Enforcement of Adjudicator Order Under Canada Labour Code (unjust Dismissal) / Motion for Enforcement by Equivalence Decided; Judge Appointed to Determine Damages by Specially Managed Proceeding

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Federal Court can order enforcement by equivalence of an adjudicator's reinstatement order filed in the Federal Court Registry
  2. 2 Whether filing a subsequent unjust dismissal complaint constituted a waiver of the reinstatement order
  3. 3 Appropriate remedy where reinstatement cannot be effectuated because employer abolished the position

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that it can order enforcement by equivalence of the reinstatement order filed by adjudicator Fortier on March 16, 1999 because the order filed in the Federal Court has the effect of a judgment, equity requires a remedy where reinstatement cannot be effected, and calculation and payment of compensation is the appropriate means to enforce the reinstatement order; the filing of a second unjust dismissal complaint did not amount to waiver of the reinstatement order. The Court allowed the motion and appointed a judge to determine compensation by a specially managed proceeding.

Court Disposition

Motion for enforcement by equivalence allowed

Orders

  • Motion for enforcement by equivalence of adjudicator Fortier's decision of March 16, 1999 is allowed
  • A judge is appointed to determine the compensation by a specially managed proceeding