COURT FILE NO.: 117/08
DATE: 20090310
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
carnwath, bellamy and pierce jj.
B E T W E E N:
NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, TRANSPORTATION AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION OF CANADA (CAW-CANADA)
Applicant
- and -
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY
Respondent
- and -
MICHEL PICHER
Respondent
Barry E. Wadsworth, for the Applicant
Richard J. Charney, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: March 10, 2009
CARNWATH J.: (Orally)
[1] The Applicant (CAW-Canada) seeks judicial review of an arbitration award of Michel Picher, dated February 15, 2008 in which he denied the Union’s grievance.
[2] Arbitrator Picher was asked to hear and determine a number of issues regarding the interpretation of the contracting out provision in the collective agreement between the Union and the employer, CN. The Applicant contends that the Arbitrator did not answer all the questions referred to him, or alternatively, did not provide sufficient reasons for his answers. The Applicant asks this court to remit the matter back, with directions from this court if appropriate.
[3] The standard of review is reasonableness.
[4] We find no basis to quash the award. The Arbitrator had been asked to decide whether CN had violated Rule 51 of the Collective Agreement. Having made his determination of the facts, the arbitrator then interpreted the provisions of the Agreement in the context of the Agreement as a whole. His conclusions are consistent with his findings of fact. A plain reading of the decision – read as a whole – demonstrates that the Arbitrator was well aware of the position of the union and the company, and he decided what the Joint Statement of Issue asked him to address. While for greater certainty, the Arbitrator could have referred specifically to each of the relevant parts of Rule 51, his reasons clearly show that he did not consider the substance of the Rule to have been violated.
[5] This case is distinguishable from Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co., [2003] A.J. No 513, where, at para. 75, the court found that “without reasons, the inferences are too numerous and remote to allow for a proper analysis of the decision”. That is not the case in the matter before us. Here, the parties have more than just an answer. They have the reasoning of the Arbitrator which allows them to see that the Arbitrator’s decision was reached upon proper principles. In our view, the Arbitrator’s reasons are sufficiently complete for us to determine whether he made reviewable errors, as submitted by CAW-Canada. We find he did not. His decision was reasonable in that it was responsive to the key issues in the case and the key arguments of the parties.
[6] Judicial review is denied.
COSTS
[7] I have endorsed the back of the Application Record, Volume I: “The application is dismissed for oral reasons given by Carnwath J. in Court. Costs to the respondent fixed at $6,000.00, inclusive of fees, disbursements and GST, partial indemnity payable 30 days on the agreement of the parties”.
CARNWATH J.
BELLAMY J.
PIERCE J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 10, 2009
Date of Release: March 12, 2009
COURT FILE NO.: 117/08
DATE: 20090310
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
carnwath, bellamy and pierce jj.
B E T W E E N:
NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, TRANSPORTATION AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION OF CANADA (CAW-CANADA)
Applicant
- and -
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY
Respondent
- and -
MICHEL PICHER
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CARNWATH J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 10, 2009
Date of Release: March 12, 2009