Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The IAMAW sought judicial review of a decision by the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) that allowed union fragmentation.

• CIRB’s decision to permit a representation vote before issuing full reasons raised procedural fairness concerns.

• IAMAW requested a stay to prevent unsealing the ballots until the judicial review is resolved.

• The applicable legal test for a stay was the three-part framework from RJR-MacDonald v. Canada.

• Evidence of irreparable reputational harm to IAMAW was considered credible and compelling.

• The Federal Court of Appeal found the balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo.

Facts and outcome of the case

This case arises from a dispute between two unions over the representation of Air Canada employees. The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) had been the exclusive bargaining agent for approximately 11,500 technical, maintenance, and operational support workers at Air Canada since 1941. In 2025, the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA) sought certification to represent a subset—about 2,250 Technical Services Business Unit employees—within that broader group.

AMFA filed an application with the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB), which ruled on May 7, 2025, that the fragmentation of the existing bargaining unit was appropriate and ordered a representation vote to be held. While the vote proceeded, the CIRB directed that the ballots be sealed pending further notice, as it had yet to release detailed reasons for its decision.

IAMAW filed for judicial review of the CIRB’s decision on May 12, 2025, and simultaneously sought a stay of the CIRB’s order to prevent the unsealing of the ballots until the judicial review was completed. The Federal Court of Appeal considered the motion for a stay based on the legal framework established in RJR-MacDonald v. Canada, which requires assessing whether there is a serious question to be tried, whether the applicant would suffer irreparable harm, and which party would suffer greater harm from granting or refusing the stay.

The Court found that IAMAW’s application for judicial review was not frivolous or vexatious, satisfying the first requirement. The IAMAW provided direct affidavit evidence from its President stating that unsealing and disclosing the vote results—particularly if AMFA had won—would damage its reputation and internal relationships, thereby meeting the irreparable harm criterion. On the balance of convenience, the Court ruled that a delay in implementing the representation vote, assuming AMFA had prevailed, was outweighed by the potential reputational damage IAMAW would face if the stay was denied but its judicial review later succeeded.

As a result, on July 17, 2025, the Federal Court of Appeal granted the stay, ordering that the CIRB take no further action with respect to the vote, including unsealing the ballots, until the judicial review application is resolved or discontinued. The Court deferred the matter of legal costs, stating that they would be determined in the cause.