CUPE v. Air Canada

CUPE v. Air Canada

The complaint was properly characterized as governed by s.127.1 because the employer satisfied its immediate protection obligation under s.128(8) by grounding the aircraft; therefore the internal complaint resolution process in s.127.1 had to be exhausted before Transport Canada could appoint an HSO, and Transport...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2009 FCA 356
Parties
Appellant: CUPE, Air Canada Component; Respondent: Air Canada
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Administrative Decision / Appeal to Federal Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Work Refusal, Internal Complaint Resolution, Jurisdiction to Appoint Health and Safety Officer, Exhaustion of Remedies, Interpretation of Canada Labour Code Ss.127.1 and 128, Discretion to Intervene
Source Language
english
Labour Law Administrative Law Occupational Health and Safety Aviation Regulation Judicial Review Work Refusal Internal Complaint Resolution Jurisdiction to Appoint Health and Safety Officer +3 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 5 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CUPE, Air Canada Component

Appellant

Air Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Administrative Decision / Appeal to Federal Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Transport Canada had jurisdiction to appoint a Health and Safety Officer (HSO) to investigate before the internal complaint resolution process in s.127.1 was completed
  2. 2 Whether the internal complaint resolution process in s.127.1 is mandatory and must be exhausted before seeking appointment of an HSO
  3. 3 Whether the employer satisfied its immediate obligations under s.128(8) by grounding the aircraft

Ratio Decidendi

The complaint was properly characterized as governed by s.127.1 because the employer satisfied its immediate protection obligation under s.128(8) by grounding the aircraft; therefore the internal complaint resolution process in s.127.1 had to be exhausted before Transport Canada could appoint an HSO, and Transport Canada's decision not to intervene prior to completion of that process was legally correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.