Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Transport Qamutik argued that Groupe NEAS, not itself, was the true employer of the 14 unlicensed seafarers on the MV Qamutik.
   
• Individual employment contracts and end-of-season records of employment named Transport Qamutik as the seafarers' employer.
   
• Seafarers' connection to the proposed unit was disputed because the 2024 season, and their employment contracts, had ended in November 2024, before the Union's application dated March 21, 2025.
   
• The Board set the reference period for measuring Union support using its discretion under paragraph 28(c) of the Canada Labour Code.
   
• Interchangeability of crew across the seven-vessel fleet was raised by the employer but not specifically addressed in the Board's reasons.
   
• On reasonableness review, the court held that the Board did not have to respond to every argument as long as its reasoning path could be discerned.
   

Facts of the case

Transport Qamutik inc. operates the vessel Qamutik, one of seven vessels in a fleet in which each vessel is held by a separate company belonging to Groupe NEAS inc. Groupe NEAS manages and oversees the fleet together with a related company. Daniel Dagenais is president and chief executive officer of both Transport Qamutik and Groupe NEAS, and Maxime Dubé is secretary of both companies.

According to Transport Qamutik, its operations are seasonal, so seafarers are laid off at the end of each season, subject to possible recall the following year. The company also said that a recalled seafarer's assignment to a vessel in the fleet is settled after a discussion with that seafarer, so crew members are often interchangeable between vessels.

The Syndicat international des marins canadiens applied to the Canada Industrial Relations Board for certification in an application dated March 21, 2025. On June 19, 2025, the Board issued Order No. 12093-U, deciding the matter on the parties' written submissions. It certified the Union as bargaining agent for all unlicensed crew members working for Transport Qamutik on the MV Qamutik, excluding masters, officers, chief engineers and other licensed personnel. Transport Qamutik then sought judicial review in the Federal Court of Appeal, which heard the matter in Montréal on September 22, 2026.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The preamble to the Canada Labour Code promotes freedom of association and the collective bargaining of working conditions. Section 27 requires the Board to decide whether a proposed bargaining unit is appropriate for collective bargaining, which the court identified as the ultimate question in a certification application. In this case, the Board relied on the discretion conferred by paragraph 28(c) to set the reference period for assessing employee support.

The court also pointed to procedural provisions. Section 16.1 of the Code expressly allows the Board to decide applications without a hearing. Section 7 of the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012 reflects that some applications will be decided on the record, and section 19 allows the Board to require affidavits confirming the content of filed proceedings. The Board apparently did not consider it necessary to require affidavits or to hold a hearing.

Reasoning and analysis

Applying the reasonableness standard from Vavilov, the court addressed Transport Qamutik's position that the Board gave no justified, transparent and intelligible reasons on four issues: the identity of the true employer, the seafarers' connection to the vessel during and after the 2024 season, the reference period for assessing Union support, and the appropriateness of the unit.

On the true employer, Transport Qamutik relied on Groupe NEAS's control over access to employment, working conditions, benefits, work organization and crew interchangeability. The Board had before it the seafarers' individual employment contract, the work files of some seafarers, and Quebec enterprise register statements for both companies, and it concluded that Transport Qamutik was the employer. The court found that the Board expressly noted the challenge, considered the written submissions, identified the documents bearing on the issue, and decided it. Citing Vavilov, the court held that the Board did not have to mention every argument and that the court could "connect the dots on the page" to follow the Board's reasoning.

Transport Qamutik described crew interchangeability as central to all its arguments, including those on the seafarers' connection to the unit and on the reference period. The court acknowledged that the Board did not specifically address the issue but held that this did not make the decision unreasonable. The Board had found that no evidence on its record showed the seafarers had lost their employee status after the 2024 season ended, and that they kept a sufficient and continuing connection to the proposed unit. The court deferred to that finding.

Having made it, the Board exercised its paragraph 28(c) discretion. Citing applicable case law, including Algoma Central Marine, 2009 CIRB 469, it decided to measure support among employees who worked during the season that ended in November 2024. The court saw no lack of transparency in that step and found it consistent with the Code's objective of facilitating freedom of association and free collective bargaining. Although the Board's decision was concise, the court held that, read as a whole and against the record, its conclusion that the unit was appropriate for collective bargaining could be understood.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Transport Qamutik's application for judicial review on September 29, 2026, finding that the Board did not act unreasonably in certifying the Syndicat international des marins canadiens. The Union was the successful party. No monetary award was made, and, in line with the parties' submissions, the court ordered no costs.