Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers v. Victoria Flying Services Ltd.

Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers v. Victoria Flying Services Ltd.
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1978-11-21
Report
[1979] 1 SCR 95
Judges
Laskin, Bora; Martland, Ronald; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Spence, Wishart Flett; Pigeon, Louis-Philippe; Dickson, Robert George Brian; Beetz, Jean; Estey, Willard Zebedee; Pratte, Yves
On appeal from
Federal Court of Appeal
Subjects
Labour law
Decision Content
Supreme Court of Canada
Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers v. Victoria Flying Services Ltd., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 95
Date: 1978-11-21
Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers Appellant;
and
Victoria Flying Services Ltd. Respondent;
and
Canada Labour Relations Board Intervener.
1978: November 21.
Present: Laskin C.J. and Martland, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Pratte JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Labour law—Certification—Evidence of opposition to Union—Evidence weighed by Board and found unworthy of credit—Matter for Board and not subject to review—Alleged error of law by Board—No jurisdictional question involved—Board not entitled to be heard.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal[1] allowing an appeal from a decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board. Appeal allowed.
M.W. Wright, Q.C., and A. Raven, for the appellant.
D.M.M. Goldie, Q.C., for the Canada Labour Relations Board.
No one for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
THE CHIEF JUSTICE—We are all of the opinion that this appeal must be allowed. The Canada Labour Relations Board did not, as the Federal Court of Appeal said, disregard the evidence of opposition to the Union, but rather weighed the evidence and found it unworthy of credit. This was a matter for the Board and was not subject to review by the Federal Court of Appeal. We are also of the opinion that the issue in this case concerned an alleged error of law by the Board and that there was no jurisdictional question involved. Consequently, it is not a case in which the Board itself was entitled to be heard.
In the result, the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal is set aside and the certification order is restored.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Soloway, Wright, Houston, Greenberg, O’Grady & Morin, Ottawa.
Solicitors for the respondent: Hallatt, Sullivan, Smith, Stewart & Gow, Victoria.
Solicitors for the intervener: Russell & DuMoulin, Vancouver.
[1] (1977), 78 CLLC 14, 118.