Actton Transport Ltd. v. Steeves, 2003 CarswellNat 2213 (Fed. T.D.)
Russell Lyle McIvor was a waste disposal truck driver in Calgary. When he left his job with Actton Transport Ltd., he complained he was due overtime wages. The company was ordered to pay up in a letter written by Dawn Steeves, an employee with the Ministry of Labour. She wrote the order based on her interpretation of the Motor Vehicle Operators Hours of Work Regulations section of the Canada Labour Code.
In the code the guidelines for overtime pay depend on the definition of a “city motor vehicle operator.” A guideline for this is the “prevailing industry practice in the geographic area.”
The question in this case was: Is Steeves (or any other inspector) entitled to interpret the code and decide who is or is not a “city motor vehicle operator” according to the prevailing practice in the area? Actton argued that, in deciding what the “prevailing industry practice” is, the inspector is making law, something she has no authority to do. The company also complained the term “geographic area” is unclear because specific boundaries are not given.
Both of Actton’s arguments were dismissed, as was its attack on the order. The court ruled that inspectors are authorized to investigate, gather evidence, make a determination about “prevailing industry practice,” and take enforcement action if necessary.
Russell Lyle McIvor was a waste disposal truck driver in Calgary. When he left his job with Actton Transport Ltd., he complained he was due overtime wages. The company was ordered to pay up in a letter written by Dawn Steeves, an employee with the Ministry of Labour. She wrote the order based on her interpretation of the Motor Vehicle Operators Hours of Work Regulations section of the Canada Labour Code.
In the code the guidelines for overtime pay depend on the definition of a “city motor vehicle operator.” A guideline for this is the “prevailing industry practice in the geographic area.”
The question in this case was: Is Steeves (or any other inspector) entitled to interpret the code and decide who is or is not a “city motor vehicle operator” according to the prevailing practice in the area? Actton argued that, in deciding what the “prevailing industry practice” is, the inspector is making law, something she has no authority to do. The company also complained the term “geographic area” is unclear because specific boundaries are not given.
Both of Actton’s arguments were dismissed, as was its attack on the order. The court ruled that inspectors are authorized to investigate, gather evidence, make a determination about “prevailing industry practice,” and take enforcement action if necessary.
