Canada (Attorney General) v. Burden

Canada (Attorney General) v. Burden

The Court dismissed the application: the second adjudicator complied with Justice de Montigny’s directions by not relying solely on s.2.7.3; correctness standard applies to compliance with prior court directions and reasonableness to interpretation; on a reasonableness standard the adjudicator reasonably interpreted...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2012 FC 383
Parties
Applicant: Attorney General of Canada; Respondent: Scott Burden; Respondent: Martin Cyr
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Adjudicator Decision / Final Judgment — Application Dismissed With Costs
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Isolated Post Policy, Interpretation of Collective Agreements, Travel Expense Reimbursement, Standard of Review, Stare Decisis, Seasonal Employee Entitlements
Source Language
english
Administrative Law Labour Law Employment Law Public Law Isolated Post Policy Interpretation of Collective Agreements Travel Expense Reimbursement Standard of Review +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General of Canada

Applicant

Scott Burden

Respondent

Martin Cyr

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Adjudicator Decision / Final Judgment — Application Dismissed With Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the adjudicator comply with the reasons for judgment of Justice de Montigny?
  2. 2 Did the adjudicator err in his interpretation of the Isolated Post Policy (IPP)?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the application: the second adjudicator complied with Justice de Montigny’s directions by not relying solely on s.2.7.3; correctness standard applies to compliance with prior court directions and reasonableness to interpretation; on a reasonableness standard the adjudicator reasonably interpreted the IPP to treat seasonal employees on lay-off as "employees" for purposes of s.2.1.2 and thus entitled to reimbursement of non-elective medical travel expenses.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed with costs