Royal Bank of Canada v. Bolduc
T-556-93
Pinard J.
16/3/94
6 pp.
Application for judicial review to quash adjudicator's decision under Canada Labour Code, s. 242-Adjudicator quashed respondent's dismissal and substituted suspension without pay for six months followed by return to work with compensation-Privative clause contained in Code, s. 243 did not prevent judicial review under Federal Court Act, s. 18 but limited this Court's intervention to cases of "patently unreasonable" decisions: National Corn Growers' Association v. Canada (Import Tribunal), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1324 and Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 941-Adjudicator acknowledged fault by employee, quashed dismissal and substituted significant suspension without pay of six months-Cannot be said that in reliance on uncontradicted testimony of dismissed employee, adjudicator, who acted within jurisdiction, made clearly unreasonable decision-Admissibility of evidence of facts subsequent to dismissal not subject of such clear rule of law that error, if any, could give rise to judicial review-Application dismissed-Canada Labour Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2, ss. 242 (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (1st Supp.), c. 9, s. 16), 243-Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 18 (as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 4).