Executive Summary – Key Legal & Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdictional authority of the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) was contested, with the applicant claiming the matter falls under provincial jurisdiction.

• The certification of the union as bargaining agent was granted without analyzing whether the employees' work was part of a federal undertaking.

• No jurisdictional arguments were made during the original Board hearing, and the Board's decision lacked legal reasoning on this issue.

• Applicant attempted to submit new affidavit evidence on judicial review, but it was excluded as it could have been presented earlier.

• The Court emphasized that federal labour regulation only applies if the work is integral to a federal undertaking, per Tessier.

• Due to an insufficient factual record, the certification order was quashed and remitted to the CIRB for proper determination.

Facts of the Case

East Coast Hydraulics & Machinery (2009) Limited (“East Coast”) challenged a December 7, 2023 certification order made by the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB). The order recognized the International Longshoremen’s Association, Local 1976 as the bargaining agent for a group of longshoring employees working at the Port of Mulgrave, Nova Scotia.

The union had applied for certification under subsection 24(1) of the Canada Labour Code. The CIRB granted the certification without addressing whether it had the proper jurisdiction, seemingly assuming that all longshoring work falls within federal labour jurisdiction.

East Coast, which had not raised the issue of jurisdiction during the CIRB proceedings (and was unrepresented at the time), later brought this judicial review application arguing that the CIRB lacked jurisdiction. The company contended that the employees in question worked exclusively for fishing vessels, which are not federal undertakings, and thus their labour relations fall within provincial jurisdiction.

Arguments and Court’s Analysis

The central issue in the case was whether the CIRB had jurisdiction to certify the union, or whether the matter was properly under provincial authority, per the Constitution Act, 1867, specifically sections 91 and 92.

The Federal Court of Appeal noted that:

• The CIRB did not analyze or address whether it had jurisdiction.

• Jurisdictional questions are reviewed on a standard of correctness, as confirmed in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65.

• Jurisprudence, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tessier Ltée v. Quebec, holds that longshoring activities are not automatically federally regulated unless they are integral to a federal undertaking (e.g., marine transportation under federal authority).

• The factual record before the CIRB was inadequate to make a jurisdictional determination. The Court highlighted that no evidence was provided about the nature of the operations or the vessels involved.

• The applicant submitted a new affidavit on judicial review, but the Court refused to admit it, as it should have been presented during the original hearing.

The Court held that without a proper factual and legal foundation, the CIRB could not have reasonably assumed jurisdiction.

Outcome

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled in favor of East Coast:

• The CIRB’s certification order was quashed.

• The matter was remitted back to the Board to be reconsidered by a different panel, applying the correct legal framework.

• Costs were awarded to the applicant (East Coast).