PRACTICE |
Judgments and Orders |
Stay of Execution |
VIA Rail Canada Inc. v. Cairns
A-273-03
2004 FCA 297, Evans J.A.
15/9/04
12 pp.
Motion by applicant for stay of decision of Canada Industrial Relations Board imposing terms on parties to labour dispute ([2003] CIRB No. 230; [2003] C.I.R.B.D. No. 20 (QL)), and of order of this Court dismissing applications for judicial review ([2005]1 F.C.R. 205) pending disposition by S.C.C. of leave to appeal application--Whether Court having jurisdiction to grant stays requested--Supreme Court Act, s. 65.1(1) authorizing court appealed from to order stay with respect to judgment from which leave to appeal being sought--Read literally, s. 65.1(1) not permitting Court to stay Board's order--Such interpretation seriously impeding Court's effective exercise of jurisdiction to stay own orders if not capable of staying order of tribunal underlying judgment of Court--Court may thus also stay order subject of its judgment when staying own order--If such interpretation wrong, on facts of present case, jurisdiction conferred by Federal Courts Act, s. 50(1)(b), allowing Court to stay proceedings in any cause or matter, or where in interest of justice--Present case distinguishable from New Brunswick Electric Power Commission v. Maritime Electric Company Limited, [1985] 2 F.C. 13 (C.A.) where Court held could not stay order of National Energy Board as no "proceedings" still before Board to be stayed--Here, Board expressly retained jurisdiction over any question arising from order, further proceedings contemplated to enable Board to deal with outstanding issues--Federal Courts Act, s. 50(1)(b) authorizing Court to stay Board from taking steps to execute, implement order--Whether applicant satisfying RJR-- MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311 test for determining whether stay should be granted--Conceivable S.C.C. may grant applicant leave to appeal--Serious issue raised, especially in light of unusual nature of remedies imposed in Board decision, limitation imposed on free collective bargaining, dissenting reasons in F.C.A. decision--Sufficient information provided by applicant to establish irreparable harm if appeal successful, i.e. unrecoverable financial expenditures, disruption to labour relations to detriment of travelling public--Because motion seeking stay only until leave application dealt with (and not until S.C.C. decides merits of appeal if leave granted), balance of convenience favouring applicant--Motion granted-- Supreme Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. S-26, s. 65.1(1) (as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 40; 1994, c. 44, s. 101)--Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, ss. 1 (as am. by S.C. 2002, c. 8, s. 14), 50(1)(b) (as am. idem, s. 46).