Jennings v. Shaw Cablesystems Ltd.

Jennings v. Shaw Cablesystems Ltd.

Adjudicator did not err: s.242 grants discretion to admit relevant late evidence despite non‑compliance with s.241(1); procedural fairness was preserved by adjournment and opportunity to respond; factual findings were supported by corroborative testimony and are not patently unreasonable in light of the privative clause, therefore the judicial review application is dismissed.

Citation
2003 FC 1206
Parties
Applicant: Patrick Jennings; Respondent: Shaw Cablesystems Ltd.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Canada Labour Code Unjust Dismissal / Final Judgment on Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Just Cause for Dismissal, Evidence Admissibility, Standard of Review, Privative Clause, Costs
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Labour Law Employment Law Procedural Fairness Just Cause for Dismissal Evidence Admissibility Standard of Review Privative Clause +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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Jennings

Applicant

Shaw Cablesystems Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Canada Labour Code Unjust Dismissal / Final Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Board err by failing to consider the manner in which the Respondent dismissed the Applicant?
  2. 2 Did the Board err by admitting expanded grounds for dismissal introduced by Shaw after the s.241(1) 15 day period?
  3. 3 Did the Board base its decision on erroneous findings of fact made perversely or without regard to the material before it?

Ratio Decidendi

Adjudicator did not err: s.242 grants discretion to admit relevant late evidence despite non‑compliance with s.241(1); procedural fairness was preserved by adjournment and opportunity to respond; factual findings were supported by corroborative testimony and are not patently unreasonable in light of the privative clause, therefore the judicial review application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Application of Patrick Jennings is dismissed
  • No award of costs