View cases - Stewart McKelvey

positively as to action; or morally give the wrongdoing employer a “bloody nose”; orif truly an empty process, it would demonstrate the need for strengthening bylegislative amendment. [para. 18][111] Farley J. accordingly found that the complaint was premature:. . . it would seem to me to be a premature and unfair complaint that the Tribunalcharged under the AEPA with dealing with complaints — namely the Agriculture,Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal — is bereft of expertise in labour relationsgiven its bipartite composition of labour and agricultural experienced personnel.That Tribunal should be given a fair opportunity to demonstrate its ability toappropriately handle the function given to it by the AEPA. [para. 28]2011 SCC 20 (CanLII)[112] Section 11 of the AEPA specifically empowers the Tribunal to make a determinationthat there has been a contravention of the Act, and to grant an order or remedy with respect tothat contravention. The Tribunal may be expected to interpret its powers, in accordance with itsmandate, purposively, in an effective and meaningful way. Labour tribunals enjoy substantiallatitude when applying their constituent statutes to the facts of a given case. As stated by theOntario Labour Relations Board in Adams Mine, Cliffs of Canada Ltd. v. United Steelworkers ofAmerica (1982), 1 C.L.R.B.R. (N.S.) 384:The Act does not spell out each and every right and obligation of labour andmanagement. This Board is left with the task of applying the Act’s general languagein the light of an infinite variety of circumstances which may arise. A rigid schemeof regulation is avoided and flexibility is provided although all within the limitationsnecessary to effectuate the dominant purpose of the Act. [pp. 399-400][113] We conclude the AEPA does not breach s. 2(d) of the Charter. It is thereforeunnecessary to consider the s. 1 arguments that the respondents’ demands for full LRA