Canada (Attorney General) v. Dufour
The appeal is dismissed because there was no basis for intervening and the Federal Court judge did not err in concluding the adjudicator's interpretation of clause 30.07(k) was unreasonable; the Court also held that Federal Court judges should avoid speaking orders and provide fuller reasons.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2015 FCA 226
- Parties
- Appellant: Attorney General of Canada; Respondent: Jean-Guillaume Dufour
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 26 October 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Federal Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From the Federal Court
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- Reasonableness Standard, Interpretation of Collective Agreement Clause 30.07(k), Judicial Reasons and Speaking Orders
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Attorney General of Canada
Appellant
Jean-Guillaume Dufour
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Federal Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From the Federal Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Federal Court judge erred in finding the adjudicator's interpretation of clause 30.07(k) unreasonable
- 2 Whether there was a basis for intervening
- 3 Whether Federal Court judges should issue speaking orders or provide fuller reasons
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because there was no basis for intervening and the Federal Court judge did not err in concluding the adjudicator's interpretation of clause 30.07(k) was unreasonable; the Court also held that Federal Court judges should avoid speaking orders and provide fuller reasons.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Canada (Attorney General) v. Dufour Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2015-10-26 Neutral citation 2015 FCA 226 File numbers A-558-14 Decision Content Date: 20151026 Docket: A-558-14 Citation: 2015 FCA 226 CORAM: NADON J.A. TRUDEL J.A. SCOTT J.A. BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Appellant and JEAN-GUILLAUME DUFOUR Respondent Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on October 26, 2015. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on October 26, 2015. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A. Date: 20151026 Docket: A-558-14 Citation: 2015 FCA 226 CORAM: NADON J.A. TRUDEL J.A. SCOTT J.A. BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Appellant and JEAN-GUILLAUME DUFOUR Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on October 26, 2015.) NADON J.A. [1] We are all of the opinion that there is no basis for intervening. [2] In our opinion, the Federal Court judge did not err in concluding that the adjudicator’s decision, and, more specifically, his interpretation of clause 30.07(k) of the collective agreement, was unreasonable. [3] We would like to note, however, that, in our opinion, it would be preferable if the judges of the Federal Court would refrain from producing orders with reasons in the form of a preamble (or a speaking order) in order to dispose of cases such as the one before us, which raises important questions of fact and law. [4] In our view, more fleshed-out reasons would allow the parties and our Court to better understand the judge’s reasoning. Among other things, the reasons for judgment would allow us to benefit from the judge’s perspective before we draw our own conclusions. [5] For these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed with costs. “Marc Nadon” J.A. Certified true translation Johanna Kratz, Translator FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-558-14 STYLE OF CAUSE: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA v. JEAN-GUILLAUME DUFOUR PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: October 26, 2015 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A. TRUDEL J.A. SCOTT J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: NADON J.A. APPEARANCES: Martin Desmeules For the Appellant Maude Pepin-Hallé FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: William F. Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the appellant Laroche Martin Montréal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT