|
Labour - Stay Pending Judicial Review. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association [tribunal order reasons reserved]
In International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (Fed CA, 2025) the Federal Court of Appeal granted a union-brought stay pending JR motion of a CIRB decision, here relating to a competing union's representation vote. The court also addresses the situation where an order was released, though with reasons reserved, in this stay context:[6] The representation vote that was ordered by the CIRB in its Order dated May 7, 2025, has been held. Therefore, this order cannot be stayed. However, since the ballots are sealed, any further proceedings could be stayed. Since IAMAW is seeking to stay the proceedings before the CIRB, the test for a stay as set out in RJR-MacDonald v. Canada, 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311 (RJR-MacDonald), is the applicable test (Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC v. AstraZeneca Canada, Inc., 2011 FCA 312, at para. 5; Coote v. Lawyers’ Professional Indemnity Company, 2013 FCA 143, at para. 11).
[7] The Supreme Court of Canada in RJR-MacDonald, at page 334, set out the three-stage test to be applied in determining whether a stay should be granted:Metropolitan Stores adopted a three-stage test for courts to apply when considering an application for either a stay or an interlocutory injunction. First, a preliminary assessment must be made of the merits of the case to ensure that there is a serious question to be tried. Secondly, it must be determined whether the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the application were refused. Finally, an assessment must be made as to which of the parties would suffer greater harm from the granting or refusal of the remedy pending a decision on the merits ... I. Serious Question
[8] The CIRB has not released its "“detailed reasons for its decision to fragment the unit, and for its decision to accept AMFA’s alternative bargaining unit description as appropriate”". The AMFA, in its written submissions, stated "“[b]ecause the [CIRB]’s reasons have not been issued, neither the parties nor the Court can determine if those reasons were sound and consistent with the [CIRB]’s prior decisions on bargaining unit construction and fragmentation”".
[9] This submission appears to presume a requirement to conduct a detailed analysis of the decision of the CIRB to determine if there is a serious question to be tried. However, the Supreme Court in RJR-MacDonald cautioned against conducting a detailed analysis at pages 337-338:Once satisfied that the application is neither vexatious nor frivolous, the motions judge should proceed to consider the second and third tests, even if of the opinion that the plaintiff is unlikely to succeed at trial. A prolonged examination of the merits is generally neither necessary nor desirable. ....
II. Irreparable Harm
[13] The Supreme Court in RJR-MacDonald noted at page 341 that "“‘[i]rreparable’ refers to the nature of the harm suffered rather than its magnitude. It is harm which either cannot be quantified in monetary terms or which cannot be cured, usually because one party cannot collect damages from the other.”"
|
