Actton Transport Ltd. v. Steeves

Actton Transport Ltd. v. Steeves

The court dismissed the respondents' motion to stay the judicial review because the statutory appeal to the Referee was not an adequate alternative remedy in the circumstances: the regulatory definition dispute created a real risk of duplication and significant additional cost and delay if the Referee heard the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2001 FCT 984
Parties
Applicant: ACTTON TRANSPORT LTD.; Respondent: Dawn Steeves; Respondent: Canada (Minister of Labour); Respondent: Russell Lyle McIvor
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Motions (stay; Extension of Time)
Outcome
Motion to stay judicial review dismissed; motion to extend time to file application record granted.
Legal Topics
Payment Order Under Canada Labour Code, Referee Appeal Process, Adequate Alternative Remedy, Stay of Proceedings, Procedural Exclusivity, Extension of Time for Filing Record
Source Language
english
Labour Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Statutory Interpretation Payment Order Under Canada Labour Code Referee Appeal Process Adequate Alternative Remedy Stay of Proceedings +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ACTTON TRANSPORT LTD.

Applicant

Dawn Steeves

Respondent

Canada (Minister of Labour)

Respondent

Russell Lyle McIvor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Motions (stay; Extension of Time)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an adequate alternative remedy exists in the statutory referee appeal process under s.251.12 of the Canada Labour Code
  2. 2 Whether the statutory appeal process is the exclusive forum to challenge a payment order under s.251.1
  3. 3 Whether concurrent proceedings (judicial review and statutory appeal) create a danger of conflicting decisions and justify a stay

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the respondents' motion to stay the judicial review because the statutory appeal to the Referee was not an adequate alternative remedy in the circumstances: the regulatory definition dispute created a real risk of duplication and significant additional cost and delay if the Referee heard the matter before the court resolved the legal question; Parliament had not unambiguously made the statutory appeal exclusive; accordingly judicial review may proceed. The court granted an extension of time to file the application record.

Court Disposition

Motion to stay judicial review dismissed; motion to extend time to file application record granted.

Orders

  • The motion by Steeves and Canada (Minister of Labour) for an order staying the judicial review application is dismissed.
  • The motion by ACTTON to extend the time for filing its application record is granted and the time for the Applicant to file its application record is extended to 25 days after the date of the decision.