Executive Summary – Key Legal & Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review sought for alleged breach of union’s duty of fair representation under section 37 of the Canada Labour Code.

• Questioned the procedural fairness of the Canada Industrial Relations Board’s decision made without an oral hearing.

• Raised concerns over an alleged conflict of interest, asserting the union's lawyer represented both the union and the employee.

• Disputed the validity of her consent to a settlement agreement finalized in mediation-arbitration.

• Challenged the Board's exercise of jurisdiction, claiming failure to address central issues properly.

• Evidentiary focus included signed and initialed settlement documents acknowledging informed and voluntary agreement.

Facts of the Case

The applicant, Florence D’Allaire, challenged a decision rendered by the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB), which had dismissed her complaint against her former union, Teamsters Québec Local 1999.

The background of the case dates back to 2018, when the union filed five grievances on behalf of Ms. D’Allaire—three concerning her compensation prior to dismissal and two contesting the dismissal itself. Before those grievances could proceed to a hearing, the parties engaged in a mediation-arbitration session in December 2022. This resulted in a settlement agreement signed by the employer, the union, and Ms. D’Allaire. The agreement explicitly stated that D’Allaire had signed voluntarily, with sufficient time for review and the opportunity to seek advice.

In March 2023, Ms. D’Allaire filed a complaint with the CIRB, alleging that the union had breached its duty of fair representation in handling the grievances and the settlement. The CIRB dismissed her complaint in September 2023, finding no evidence of arbitrariness or bad faith by the union or its legal counsel.

Ms. D’Allaire then brought the matter to the Federal Court of Appeal, seeking judicial review of the CIRB’s ruling.

Arguments and Court’s Analysis

Before addressing the core legal issues, the Court dealt with a last-minute adjournment request from Ms. D’Allaire, which it rejected due to procedural delays and insufficient justification.

Ms. D’Allaire’s main arguments in the judicial review were:

• The CIRB violated procedural fairness by deciding her case without holding a hearing.

• There existed a conflict of interest because the union’s lawyer allegedly represented both her and the union.

• The CIRB failed to exercise its jurisdiction, particularly in assessing her consent to the settlement.

Procedural Fairness

The Court found no breach of procedural fairness. It cited section 16.1 of the Canada Labour Code, which allows the CIRB to decide cases without an oral hearing if it deems the written materials sufficient. The Court noted there was no evidence that Ms. D’Allaire was deprived of an opportunity to present her case.

Conflict of Interest Allegation

The Court upheld the CIRB’s finding that the union lawyer only represented the union, and Ms. D’Allaire either knew or should have known that. The Court concluded that the CIRB’s determination on this point was reasonable and did not warrant intervention.

Jurisdiction and Consent

The CIRB had addressed whether Ms. D’Allaire’s consent to the settlement was valid. It relied on the terms of the signed agreement, which included clauses confirming her informed and voluntary participation. The Court held that the CIRB had exercised its jurisdiction appropriately and its conclusions were reasonable.

Outcome

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Ms. D’Allaire’s application for judicial review on March 27, 2025, with costs awarded against her. The Court affirmed that:

• The CIRB did not breach procedural fairness.

• There was no conflict of interest.

• The CIRB properly exercised its jurisdiction in evaluating both the representation and the settlement agreement.