2021 QCCA 805, 2021 QCCA 805

Gryte c. John Abbott College Faculty Association Inc. 2021 QCCA 805 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-029446-218 ( 500-17-108692-198 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: May 11, 2021 THE HONOURABLE FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, J.A. APPLICANT COUNSEL Daniel Gryte Mtre PHILIP ASPLER ( Aspler & associé

s) By videoconference RESPONDENTS COUNSEL John Abbott College faculty association inc . Mtre CATHERINE QUINTAL ( Laroche Martin ) By videoconference John Abbott College Mtre MARIE-CHRISTINE TREMBLAY ( Chvatal Tremblay, avocats (Fédération des Cégeps) ) By videoconference IMPLEADED PARTY COUNSEL Tribunal administratif du Travail du Québec Mtre AUDREY JONCAS-BLANCHET ( Tribunal administratif du travail ) Absent DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment terminating the proceeding rendered on March 4, 2021 by the Honourable Marc St- Pierre of the Superior Court , District of Montreal (Art. 30 para. 2 (5) and 357 C.C.P. ) .

Clerk at the hearing : Mélanie Camiré Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING 9:29 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. Preliminary comments. 9:30 Submissions by Mtre Aspler. 9:41 Submissions by Mtre Quintal. 9:48 Submissions by Mtre Tremblay. 9:49 Reply by Mtre Aspler. 9:53 BY THE JUDGE: Judgment will be rendered in the minutes of the hearing during the day and will be sent to the parties. Conclusion of the hearing.

Mélanie Camiré, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The applicant, who teaches computer science at John Abbott College, seeks leave to appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court dismissing his application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Labour Tribunal (“ALT”). The ALT’s decision dismissed his claim that the respondent association had committed several breaches of its duty of fair representation (

section 47.2 of the Labour Code [1] ) in the fall of 2017, when he was suspended without pay until June 2018. [ 2 ] The Superior Court’s judgment is a judicial review judgment within the meaning of

article 30 para. 2(5) C.C.P. Leave to appeal can therefore only be granted if the applicant shows that “the matter at issue is one that should be submitted to that Court, for example because it involves a question of principle, a new issue or an issue of law that has given rise to conflicting judicial decisions/ la question en jeu en est une qui doit être soumise à la cour, notamment parce qu’il s’agit d’une question de principe, d’une question nouvelle ou d’une question de droit faisant l’objet d’une jurisprudence contradictoire ” (article 30 para. 3 C.C.P. ).

This is an exacting standard, notably because, as Justice Kasirer emphasized shortly before his appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada, “ [e]n matière de contrôle judiciaire, la Cour n’est pas une instance d’appel qui a comme vocation la correction de toutes les erreurs commises en première instance. ” [2] [ 3 ] In light of that standard, it does not suffice for the applicant to merely assert that “[i]t is in the interest of Justice for this Honourable Court to grant leave because it is imperative that all aspects of this case be fully adjudicated.” [3] Much more is needed to demonstrate that the proposed appeal of a judicial review judgment raises questions warranting the Court’s attention. [ 4 ] My review of the record leads me to the conclusion that none of the errors allegedly made by the Superior Court raise questions that have significant implications beyond the present case. [ 5 ] Furthermore, I see no basis to conclude that this is one of those exceptional cases where leave to appeal should nevertheless be granted because the applicant appears to be the victim of an injustice so flagrant and intolerable as to amount to a denial of justice. [4] Contrary to what is claimed in the application for leave to appeal, [5] the Superior Court judge did not fail to take into account the issue of prescription and jurisdiction, [6] and the applicant has not demonstrated that the judge’s analysis on that matter appeared to be flagrantly erroneous.

He has also failed to identify an apparent egregious error in the judge’s analysis of the ALT’s alleged failure to take into consideration certain documents. As for the other proposed grounds of appeal, they essentially take issue with the ALT’s analysis of various aspects of the evidence without ever pointing to an apparent egregious error justifying that leave to appeal be granted. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 6 ] DISMISSES the application for leave to appeal, with legal costs.

FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, J.A.