The Office of the Citizens’ Representative Comments on the Release of the Decision of the
Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal dated January 24, 2012

On January 24, 2012, the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal released its decision in the Office of the Citizens’ Representative v. Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, Her Majesty's Attorney General, and the Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 1860. The decision confirmed the jurisdiction, or legal right, of the Office of the Citizens’ Representative to investigate complaints from public employees who have had workplace grievances settled by their employer and union.

A citizen complained to the Office of the Citizens’ Representative about a 10-month suspension he received from his employer, the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, for a criminal conviction precipitated by events which occurred while off duty and in no way associated with his employment. He filed a grievance with his union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees. It successfully negotiated a reduction of the suspension from 10 months to six months. He subsequently filed a complaint with the Office of the Citizens’ Representative alleging that the six-month suspension was unfair. The employer challenged the jurisdiction of the Office of the Citizens’ Representative to complete its investigation on the basis that the employee’s issue had been dealt with through the grievance arbitration process. At a subsequent court application, Her Majesty's Attorney General and the Canadian Union of Public Employees were granted intervenor status.

The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division ruled that the employee was not "aggrieved" as contemplated by the Citizens’ Representative Act and therefore the Office of the Citizens’ Representative was without the legal right to investigate his complaint. In doing so, it concluded that by operation of law, the employee was deemed to have consented to the settled grievance and therefore could not continue to complain about the suspension. A majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the Trial Division decision. The Court confirmed that for the purposes of complaints to ombudsman offices, a person is aggrieved when he or she genuinely suffers, or is seriously threatened with, any form of harm prejudicial to his or her interests, whether or not a legal right is called into question.

Citizens’ Representative Barry Fleming stated, “The Court of Appeal decision is important for three reasons. First, it permits our Office to complete the investigation of this citizen’s complaint. Second, it clearly defines our jurisdiction to investigate complaints arising from unionized public sector employment. Finally, it affirms my commitment, as a Statutory Officer of the House of Assembly, to vigorously defend challenges to the broad and remedial purposes of the Citizens’ Representative Act.”

Copies of the decision are available on the Office of the Citizens’ Representative website, www.citizensrep.nl.ca. Those wishing a hard copy of the decision can contact Jocelyn Walsh at the numbers listed or at citrep@gov.nl.ca.

- 30 -

Media contact:
Jocelyn Walsh
Office of the Citizens’ Representative
709-729-7647
1-800-559-0079

2012 01 30                        12:15 p.m.