A-389-84
National Bank of Canada (Appellant)
v.
Rodney Granda (Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Pratte, Marceau and Hugessen
JJ.—Montreal, March 22, 1984.
Jurisdiction — Appeal from Trial Judge's dismissal of
application to vacate seizure for want of jurisdiction — Funds
seized in execution of Adjudicator's decision awarding
unliquidated compensation and filed pursuant to s. 61.5(12) of
the Code — Appeal allowed — Trial Judge having jurisdic
tion to supervise proceedings in execution of Adjudicator's
decision filed pursuant to s. 61.5(12) — Adjudicator's decision
not subject to forced execution since amount of compensation
not determined — Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. L-1,
s. 61.5 (as am. by S.C. 1977-78, c. 27, s. 21).
Labour relations — Adjudicator directing reinstatement and
compensation — Decision filed in Federal Court under Code s.
61.5(12) — Writ of fieri facias obtained — Amount seized by
bailiff — Federal Court Trial Division dismissing application
to vacate seizure for want of jurisdiction — Court of Appeal
holding Trial Division having jurisdiction to supervise pro
ceedings in execution of Adjudicator's decision filed with
Court — Adjudicator's decision on compensation not subject
to forced execution as amount not determined — Seizure in
accordance with wrongful writ of fieri facias void — Canada
Labour Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. L-1, s. 61.5 (as am. by S.C.
1977-78, c. 27, s. 21).
CASES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED
DISTINGUISHED:
Nauss et al. v. Local 269 of the International Longshore-
men's Association, [1982] 1 F.C. 114 (C.A.); Union des
employés de commerce, local 503 et al. v. Purolator
Courrier Ltée, [1983] 2 F.C. 344 (C.A.).
COUNSEL:
John Coleman and Jacques Nadeau for
appellant.
Guy Monette for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Ogilvy, Renault, Montreal, for appellant.
Monette, Clerk, Barakett, Lévesque, Bourque
& Pedneault, Montreal, for respondent.
The following is the English version of the
reasons for judgment of the Court delivered orally
by
PRATTE J.: This appeal is from a judgment of
the Trial Division [judgment dated March 5, 1984,
T-2921-83], which dismissed an application by
appellant to vacate a seizure made pursuant to a
decision of an Adjudicator which was filed with
the Court in accordance with subsection 61.5(12)
of the Canada Labour Code [R.S.C. 1970, c. L-1,
as am. by S.C. 1977-78, c. 27, s. 21].
The Adjudicator's decision in question was
made after respondent complained that he had
been unfairly dismissed by appellant. In it, the
Adjudicator directed appellant to reinstate
respondent in a position similar to that held by
him at the time of his dismissal; the Adjudicator
further stated that appellant should compensate
respondent for the period [TRANSLATION] "run-
ning from the date of the dismissal to August 9,
1982". The Adjudicator did not liquidate the
amount of this compensation in his decision: he
simply said that, pursuant to what was agreed at
the hearing, he reserved [TRANSLATION] "his
jurisdiction to decide any disagreement regarding
establishment of this compensation".
Respondent filed this decision with the Registry
of the Court pursuant to subsection 61.5(12) of the
Code. He subsequently obtained a writ of fieri
facias authorizing any bailiff to collect the sum of
$28,650 from the property of appellant in execu
tion of the decision. Some days later, the bailiff
went to appellant's premises and obtained the sum
of $28,650.
Appellant then filed in the Trial Division an
application to vacate this seizure. The Trial Judge
dismissed this application solely on the ground that
he did not have jurisdiction to allow it.
In our view this judgment is incorrect. We con
sider that the Trial Division has jurisdiction to
supervise proceedings in execution of an Adjudica
tor's decision filed pursuant to subsection 61.5(12)
of the Code, just as it may supervise the forced
execution of its own decisions. The decisions ren
dered by this Court in Nauss et al. v. Local 269 of
the International Longshoremen's Association,
[ 1982] 1 F.C. 114 (C.A.) and Union des employés
de commerce, local 503 et al. v. Purolator Courri-
er Ltée, [1983] 2 F.C. 344 (C.A.) have no applica
tion here: those decisions concern the power to stay
the execution of decisions made pursuant to the
Canada Labour Code, whereas the case at bar
concerns the power to supervise proceedings in
execution originating with the Court itself.
The Trial Division accordingly had the power to
allow appellant's application: and indeed, it should
have allowed it. It is quite clear that the part of the
Adjudicator's decision regarding the payment of
monetary compensation to respondent was not sub
ject to forced execution, since it did not determine
the amount of that compensation. Accordingly, the
writ of fieri facias which was executed in the case
at bar should not have been issued and the seizure
should not have been made.
For these reasons, the appeal will be allowed,
the decision a quo will be set aside and the Court
finds that the writ of fieri facias issued in the case
at bar was wrongful and the seizure made in
accordance with that writ was void. Appellant will
be entitled to its costs at first instance and on
appeal.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.