Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

[2012] 1 F.C.R. D-10

Labour Relations

Judicial review of Canada Industrial Relations Board decision (2009 CIRB 477) dismissing applicant’s application for certification on ground Board lacking jurisdiction—Respondent Garda Canada Security Corporation awarded contract with Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) to provide for detention of foreign nationals at Montréal area Immigration Prevention Centre (Centre)—Application for certification filed under Canada Labour Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2 (CLC) concerning bargaining unit comprising security guards assigned to CBSA in Quebec—Noting that Centre detainees not violent, security guards having no power of arrest, services in question not severable from services provided by respondent, possibility that security guards assigned to other contracts, Board concluding respondent’s activities not vital or essential to federal undertaking—Issue whether Board’s jurisdiction under CLC, s. 4 extending to labour relations of security guards working at Centre—Purpose of minimum security detention centres operated by CBSA to prevent foreign nationals detained under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 from escaping federal administration—By confusing punitive, preventive detention, Board neglecting to consider Centre’s fundamental raison d’être, vital, essential role played there by security guards—Absence of decision making by security guards regarding detention of foreign nationals in question, limited mobility of staff not relevant to constitutional analysis—Services provided by respondent at Centre dissimilar to those provided to other clients because no other client can operate detention centre or provide for detention of individuals—Security guard services provided at Centre therefore vital, essential, integral part of Centre’s operation—Application allowed.

Syndicat des agents de sécurité Garda, Section CPI-CSN v. Garda Canada Security Corporation (A-471-10, 2011 FCA 302, Mainville J., judgment dated November 4, 2011, 36 pp.)

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.