Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review was sought for two Canada Industrial Relations Board decisions that dismissed complaints as untimely.

• Alleged breach of duty of fair representation by Unifor Local 25 under section 37 of the Canada Labour Code.

• Alleged unlawful reprisal by Bell Canada in violation of section 147 of the Canada Labour Code.

• The Board refused to order production of documents or consolidate complaints, which the applicant claimed was procedurally unfair.

• The Federal Court of Appeal found the Board’s actions fell within its discretion and did not breach procedural fairness.

• Both applications for judicial review were dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and parties involved

Jason Wattleworth, the applicant, brought judicial review applications challenging two decisions of the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB). The respondents were Unifor Local 25, his former union, and Bell Canada, his former employer. Mr. Wattleworth had filed two complaints with the CIRB on July 28, 2023. The first complaint alleged that Unifor breached its duty of fair representation under section 37 of the Canada Labour Code by failing to pursue his dismissal grievance. The second complaint alleged that Bell Canada breached section 147 of the Code by terminating his employment in retaliation.

The Board's decisions

The CIRB dismissed both complaints, finding that they were filed outside the 90-day time limit established by the Code. The Board determined that Mr. Wattleworth knew or ought to have known about the union’s refusal to proceed with arbitration by November 4, 2022, and about his termination from Bell Canada by November 26, 2021. Because the complaints were not filed until July 2023, they were well beyond the applicable filing period. The Board also found no justification for extending the deadline under the discretionary provision in subsection 16(m.1) of the Code.

Applicant’s arguments on judicial review

Rather than disputing the timeliness rulings directly, Mr. Wattleworth argued that the Board’s process was procedurally unfair. He raised three main concerns: the Board failed to order production of internal correspondence from the union and employer, failed to consolidate the two complaints, and failed to provide reasons for those refusals. He also objected to the fact that no oral hearing was held.

Court’s analysis and conclusion

The Federal Court of Appeal rejected all of Mr. Wattleworth’s arguments. The Court found that the Board acted within its statutory authority under section 16.1 of the Canada Labour Code to proceed without a hearing. It ruled that the requested documents were irrelevant to the timeliness issue, which depended on what Mr. Wattleworth knew or ought to have known—not on internal communications between Unifor and Bell. As for the consolidation request, the Court held that even if granted, it would not have changed the outcome since both complaints were late and time-barred individually. Ultimately, the Court found no procedural unfairness and held that Mr. Wattleworth had a full and fair chance to present his case.

Final outcome

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed both judicial review applications. It awarded costs against Mr. Wattleworth, though the amount was not specified in the judgment. The ruling reaffirms that procedural objections will not override clear statutory deadlines unless there is a compelling justification.