Date: 19981112

Docket: A-1023-96

CORAM:     

STONE J.A.

         LINDEN J.A.

         ROBERTSON J.A.

BETWEEN:

CLAY THOMPSON ET AL ( 123 OTHERS)

     Appellants

     (Applicants)

     - and -

MOTORWAYS (1980) LIMITED

     Respondent

     (Respondent)

     - and -

E. CROSBY ET AL (8 OTHERS)

     Appellants

     (Applicants)

     -and -

MOTORWAYS (1980) LIMITED

     Respondent

     (Respondent)

Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, Thursday, November 12, 1998

Judgment delivered from the bench at Ottawa, Ontario, Thursday, November 12, 1998

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:      STONE J.A.

Date: 19981112

Docket: A-1023-96

CORAM:

         STONE J.A.

         LINDEN J.A.

         ROBERTSON J.A.

BETWEEN:

CLAY THOMPSON ET AL ( 123 OTHERS)

     Appellants

     (Applicants)

     - and -

MOTORWAYS (1980) LIMITED

     Respondent

     (Respondent)

     - and -

E. CROSBY ET AL (8 OTHERS)

     Appellants

     (Applicants)

     -and -

MOTORWAYS (1980) LIMITED

     Respondent

     (Respondent)

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

     (Rendered from the Bench at Ottawa on Thursday, November 12, 1998)

STONE J.A.

[1]      We are not persuaded that the learned Motions Judge, Gibson J., erred in upholding the decision of the Referee appointed under subsection 251.11(1) of the Canada Labour Code.

[2]      We are in respectful agreement that given the presence of a privative clause in subsection 251.12(7) of the Code that the applicable standard of review in the circumstances of this case is that of "patent unreasonableness" rather than "correctness". Indeed this is not a point of any controversy in this appeal. It is so here, in our view, because the principal issue before the Referee was one that fell within his jurisdiction to decide rather than one concerning a legislative provision limiting his powers: Attorney General of Canada v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 614, per Sopinka J., at pages 628-29.

[3]      We are satisfied on the record which was the basis of the arguments before the Referee that the Referee did not err in a patently unreasonable way in determining that the appellants were "entitled" to receive pension benefits under the private pension plans in issue and the Canada Pension Plan. It was because of this, in our view, that the Referee decided that the entitlement under paragraph 235(2)(b) of the Code deprived the appellants of the right they otherwise would have enjoyed of receiving severance pay from their former employer pursuant to subsection 235(1) of the Code.

[4]      The appeal will be dismissed with costs.

     "A.J. STONE"

     J.A.

     FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

    

Date: 19981112

Docket: A-1023-96

BETWEEN:

CLAY THOMPSON ET AL ( 123 OTHERS)

     - and -

MOTORWAYS (1980) LIMITED

     - and -

E. CROSBY ET AL (8 OTHERS)

     -and -

MOTORWAYS (1980) LIMITED

    

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT