Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Timeliness of the duty of fair representation complaint under subsection 97(2) of the Canada Labour Code.

• Determination of when the applicant knew or ought to have known the circumstances giving rise to the complaint.

• Discretion of the Canada Industrial Relations Board to extend the 90-day time limit.

• Application of reasonableness review by the Federal Court of Appeal to the Board’s decision.

• Distinction between the facts of this case and prior CIRB decisions cited by the applicant.

• Award of costs to the successful party upon dismissal of the application.

Facts of the case

William D. Heatley, the applicant, sought to set aside the decision of the Canada Industrial Relations Board (the CIRB or the Board) issued July 3, 2024 (2024 CIRB LD 5387). The CIRB dismissed his duty of fair representation complaint because it was filed outside the 90-day time limit contained in subsection 97(2) of the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2. The CIRB determined that the applicant knew of the circumstances giving rise to the complaint when the respondent advised him that it would not advance his termination grievance to arbitration. The complaint was filed more than 90 days later, leading the Board to conclude it was untimely. The Board also decided not to exercise its discretion to extend the 90-day time limit, relying on previous cases with similar conclusions.

Legal framework and policy terms

Subsection 97(2) of the Canada Labour Code requires that a complaint of this nature must be filed within 90 days from the date on which a complainant knew, or in the opinion of the Board ought to have known, of the circumstances giving rise to the complaint. The CIRB’s decision was based on its finding that the applicant was aware of the relevant circumstances when notified by the respondent union that his grievance would not proceed to arbitration. The Board chose not to extend the time limit, referencing its established case law.

Arguments and review by the court

The applicant argued that the CIRB erred in its factual finding regarding the date he knew or should have known of the circumstances giving rise to his complaint. He also claimed the Board failed to follow four prior cases—Lang v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers, Crouch v. B.R.C., Brassard v. B.M.W.E., and Startek v. I.B.T., Local 938—where different conclusions were reached. The Court disagreed, stating that these cases turned on their specific facts, which were different from those in the present case. The Court emphasized that factual determinations about when the 90-day period begins are for the Board, not the Court, to make. The Court also noted that it could not substitute its views for those of the Board or re-make the discretionary decision to not extend the 90-day time limit.

Outcome and costs

The application was dismissed by the Federal Court of Appeal. The Court found nothing unreasonable in the Board’s decision, which was supported by well-articulated reasons and facts before the Board. The respondent, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 14, was the successful party. The Court fixed costs in the all-inclusive amount of $2,500.00 in favor of the respondent. No damages were awarded.