77-T-609
Teamsters Union, Local 106, Robert Duguay and
Florian Brunet (Applicants)
v.
Motorways Québec Limitée (Respondent)
and
General Merchandise Transport Division of the
Motor Transport Industrial Relations Bureau of
Quebec Inc. (Mis -en-cause)
Trial Division, Marceau J.—Montreal, August 15;
Ottawa, August 29, 1977.
Practice — Motion by applicants to file and register arbi
tration decision pursuant to s. 159 of Canada Labour Code —
Respondent's application to stay proceedings, pursuant to s.
50(1) of Federal Court Act — Whether or not application for
filing and registration can be stayed for reason in second
motion — Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. L- I, s. 159
Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, s. 50(1).
Two related motions were filed, one by each party. The first,
submitted by the two employees and their Union, was a motion
to have a decision of an Arbitration Board filed and registered,
pursuant to section 159 of the Canada Labour Code. The
second motion, submitted by the respondent company, is to
obtain a stay of proceedings relating to the arbitration decision,
pursuant to section 50(1) of the Federal Court Act. Proceed
ings to set aside the arbitration decision had been brought in a
provincial court. The question is whether the application for
filing and registration can itself be stayed for the reason put
forward in the second motion.
Held, filing and registration will be authorized, but the
execution proceedings which could arise therefrom are stayed
until there is a decision to set aside the decision. The Court
must rule on the application for filing, and only when the
application is found to be admissible and filing is authorized
can the Court, relying on Rule 1909, consider a stay of the
proceedings giving effect to the decision. The Court is satisfied
that the requisite conditions for filing, particularly refusal to
comply with the decision, are fulfilled, and that the decision as
written is capable of having the same effect as a judgment of
this Court; it cannot refuse the application to file and register.
Tardif v. Verreault Navigation Inc. [1978] 1 F.C. 815,
applied. International Association of Longshoremen,
Local 375 v. Association of Maritime Employers (1975)
52 D.L.R. (3d) 293, applied. International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local Union, No. 529 v. Central
Broadcasting Company Ltd. [ 1977] 2 F.C. 78, applied.
APPLICATIONS.
COUNSEL:
Gino Castiglio for applicants.
H. Dizgum for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Décary, Jasmin, Rivest, Laurin & Castiglio,
Montreal, for applicants.
Mendelson, Selick, Gross & Pinsky, Mont-
real, for respondent.
The following is the English version of the
reasons for order rendered by
MARCEAU J.: Two related motions have been
filed, one by each party. I intend to dispose of
them together.
The first is a motion to have filed and registered
a decision of an Arbitration Board dated April 21,
1977. It is submitted by the two employees in
favour of whom the decision was rendered, and
their Union, and relies on section 159 of the
Canada Labour Code, which reads as follows:
159. (1) Where any person or organization has failed to
comply with any order or decision of an arbitrator or arbitra
tion board, any person or organization affected by the order or
decision may, after fourteen days from the date on which the
order or decision is made, or the date provided in it for.
compliance, whichever is the later date, file in the Federal
Court of Canada a copy of the order or decision, exclusive of
the reasons therefor.
(2) On filing in the Federal Court of Canada under subsec
tion (1), an order or decision of an arbitrator or arbitration
board shall be registered in the Court and, when registered, has
the same force and effect, and all proceedings may be taken
thereon, as if the order or decision were a judgment obtained in
the Court.
The second is submitted by the respondent com
pany, the employer, in order to obtain a stay of
proceedings relating to the said arbitration deci
sion: it refers to section 50(1) of the Federal Court
Act' and alleges essentially that proceedings to set
aside the arbitration decision, which it is sought to
file and register, have been brought before the
' 50. (1) The Court may, in its discretion, stay proceedings
in any cause or matter,
(a) on the ground that the claim is being proceeded with in
another court or jurisdiction; or
(b) where for any other reason it is in the interest of justice
that the proceedings be stayed.
Superior Court of the Province of Quebec.
The link between the two motions, obvious
though it is, still poses a question of some apparent
perplexity, that may even put in issue the very role
of the Court in dealing with a motion under sec
tion 159 of the Canada Labour Code. The question
is whether the application for filing and registra
tion can itself be stayed for the reason put forward
in the second motion, as the respondent apparently
wishes. However, on reflection, I have come to the
conclusion that the Court must first rule on the
application for filing, and only when the applica
tion is found to be admissible and filing authorized
can the Court, relying on Rule 1909 of the Gener
al Rules and Orders, consider a stay of the pro
ceedings giving effect to the decision.
In a decision that I rendered several days ago,
on August 23 last, in Tardif v. Verreault Naviga
tion Inc. [1978] 1 F.C. 815, I explained what
appeared to me to be the role of the Court in
dealing with a motion under sections 123 or 159 of
the Canada Labour Code, both provisions having
essentially the same effect. I based my opinion on
two previous decisions of this Court: International
Association of Longshoremen, Local 375 v. Asso
ciation of Maritime Employers (1975) 52 D.L.R.
(3d) 293, and International Brotherhood of Elec
trical Workers, Local Union, No. 529 v. Central
Broadcasting Company Ltd. [1977] 2 F.C. 78. I
do not believe it is essential to review all of this
here. It will suffice to say that in my opinion, if the
Court is satisfied in dealing with an application for
filing that, on the one hand, the requisite condi
tions for such filing, particularly refusal to comply
with the decision, are fulfilled, and on the other
hand, the decision as written is capable of having
the same effect as a judgment of this Court, it
cannot refuse the application.
Even though the affidavit filed in support of the
motion is debatable, there is no doubt, having
regard to the whole of the case, that the requisite
conditions for filing have been met. Even though
the wording of the decision bears little resem
blance to the wording of a judgment of this Court,
the decision itself is still sufficiently precise and
clear that it may have the same effect as a judg
ment of this Court, since it consists solely of an
order to pay an exact sum, easily determinable
from a calculation, all the factors in which are
given.
The motion for filing and registration is there
fore granted.
However, under the authority of section 50 of its
enabling Act or of Rule 1909 of the General Rules
and Orders, the Court has the power to order a
stay of the proceedings to which the filing and
registration of the order could give rise. I believe
that this discretionary power should be exercised
as requested by the respondent company.
I do not have occasion to rule on the merit of the
proceedings to set aside brought by respondent. It
is sufficient to note that the proceedings were
validly brought, and are pending, and that
respondent's interest in delaying execution of the
decision until its validity is finally settled is a real
interest, given the repercussions that the situation
thus created may have; while on the other hand,
the pecuniary interest of employee-applicants,
which would be served without delay by immediate
execution, is minimal, being in the amounts of
$29.19 and $10.80.
Filing and registration will be authorized, but
the execution proceedings which could arise from
such filing and registration are stayed until there is
a decision on the action to set aside the decision,
now pending before the Superior Court of the
Province of Quebec under Case No. 500-05-
01426-772 of that Court.
In the circumstances, I believe that costs should
not be awarded against either of the parties.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.