Date: 20040519
Docket: A-241-03
Citation: 2004 FCA 199
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
FEDERATION CONSISTING OF THE ASSOCIATION DES PROFESSIONNELLES
ET DES PROFESSIONNELS DE LA VIDÉO DU QUÉBEC (APVQ) AND THE SYNDICAT DES TECHNICIENS DU CINÉMA ET DE LA VIDÉO DU QUÉBEC (STCVQ) (NOW KNOWN AS THE ALLIANCE QUÉBÉCOISE DES TECHNICIENS
DE L'IMAGE ET DU SON (AQTIS))
Respondent
and
CANADIAN ARTISTS AND PRODUCERS
PROFESSIONAL RELATIONS TRIBUNAL
Intervener
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on May 18 and 19, 2004.
Judgment delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on May 19, 2004.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Date: 20040519
Docket: A-241-03
Citation: 2004 FCA 199
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
FEDERATION CONSISTING OF THE ASSOCIATION DES PROFESSIONNELLES
ET DES PROFESSIONNELS DE LA VIDÉO DU QUÉBEC (APVQ) AND THE SYNDICAT DES TECHNICIENS DU CINÉMA ET DE LA VIDÉO DU QUÉBEC (STCVQ) (NOW KNOWN AS THE ALLIANCE QUÉBÉCOISE DES TECHNICIENS
DE L'IMAGE ET DU SON (AQTIS))
Respondent
and
CANADIAN ARTISTS AND PRODUCERS
PROFESSIONAL RELATIONS TRIBUNAL
Intervener
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on May 19, 2004)
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
[1] Notwithstanding the attractive argument of Mr. Piché, we are of the opinion that this application for judicial review must be dismissed.
[2] The applicant in this proceeding is asking this Court to set aside the decision dated March 4, 2003 by the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal (Tribunal). More specifically, he is asking us to rule that the members of the following professions do not contribute directly to the creative aspects of the production of a work within the meaning of subparagraph 6(2)(b)(iii) of the Status of the Artist Act, S.C. 1992, c. 33 (Act) and section 2 of the Professional Category Regulations, SOR/99-191 (Regulations):
Category 1: camera work, lighting and sound design:
assistant director, first assistant director, lighting director, sound man, sound effects technician, computer graphics designer, computer graphics special effects technician;
Category 2: costumes, coiffure and make-up design:
supervising make-up artist, make-up artist, make-up assistant, special effects make-up artist, prosthetic make-up technician, prosthetic make-up assistant, supervising hairstylist, hairdresser, wig-maker, costumer;
Category 3: set design:
assistant art director, set designer, propsman crewleader, head painter, scenic painter, sculptor-molder, draughtsman, studio special effects technician;
Category 5: editing and continuity:
floor director or manager (excluding dubbing directors), production assistant, location manager, script-clerk, off-line editor, in-line editor, sound editor, sound mixer.
[3] The relevant statutory materials read:
|
6(2) This Part applies (a) ... (b) to independent contractors determined to be professionals according to the criteria set out in paragraph 18(b), and who (i) ... (ii) ... (iii) contribute to the creation of any production in the performing arts, music, dance and variety entertainment, film, radio and television, video, sound-recording, dubbing or the recording of commercials, arts and crafts, or visual arts, and fall within a professional category prescribed by regulation. |
6(2) La présente partie s'applique : a) ... b) aux entrepreneurs indépendants professionnels - déterminés conformément à l'alinéa 18b)_ (i) ... (ii) ... (iii) qui, faisant partie de catégories professionnelles établies par règlement, participent à la création dans les domaines suivants : arts de la scène, musique, danse et variétés, cinéma, radio et télévision, enregistrements sonores, vidéo et doublage, réclame publicitaire, métiers d'art et arts visuels.
|
|
PROFESSIONAL CATEGORIES
2.(1) Subject to subsection (2), in relation to the creation of a production, the following professional categories comprising professions in which the practitioner contributes directly to the creative aspects of the production by carrying out one or more of the activities set out in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e), respectively, are prescribed as professional categories for the purposes of subparagraph 6(2)(b)(iii) of the Act: (a) category 1 - camera work, lighting and sound design; (b) category 2 - costumes, coiffure and make-up design; (c) category 3 - set design; (d) category 4 - arranging and orchestrating; and (e) category 5 - research for audiovisual productions, editing and continuity. |
CATÉGORIES PROFESSIONNELLES
2.(1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), pour l'application du sous-alinéa 6(2)b)(iii) de la Loi, sont établies à l'égard de la création d'une production les catégories professionnelles visées aux alinéas a) à e), qui comprennent les professions dont l'exercice contribue directement à la conception de la production et consiste à effectuer une ou plusieurs des activités décrites aux alinéas respectifs : a) catégorie 1 : conception de l'image, de l'éclairage et du son; b) catégorie 2 : conception de costumes, coiffures et maquillages; c) catégorie 3 : scénographie; d) catégorie 4 : arrangements et orchestration; e) catégorie 5 : recherche aux fins de productions audiovisuelles, montage et enchaînement.
|
[4] Essentially, the applicant complaints that the Tribunal erred in law in its interpretation of the Act and the Regulations by certifying the professions referred to above. In its Notice of Application for Judicial Review, he cites in support of his application the ground provided in paragraph 18.1(4)(c) of the Federal Courts Act. But subsection 21(1) of the Act contains a privative clause that expressly excludes the possibility of judicial review on the ground that the decision erred in law, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record.
[5] In his Memorandum of facts and law, and at the hearing, counsel for the applicant tried hard to persuade us that the error committed by the Tribunal was jurisdictional in nature, and thus subject to judicial review under paragraph 18.1(4)(a) of the Federal Courts Act: by certifying the professions mentioned earlier, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, he argued. In our humble opinion, if the Tribunal erred, which we do not believe, it would be an error committed in the exercise of its jurisdiction, which is not reviewable because of subsection 21(1) of the Act.
[6] Indeed, the Tribunal had before it an application for certification presented by the respondent under section 25 of the Act. One of its duties was to determine whether the persons exercising the professions mentioned earlier are, within the meaning of the Act and the Regulations, professional independent contractors who contribute to the creation of any production in the fields listed in section 1 of the Regulations. In the performance of this duty, the Tribunal asked itself "whether it was possible to identify the creative contribution of the individual's work to the production as a whole, and whether the nature of the work 'breathed life' into the ideas of a designer": see paragraph 306 of the decision. In order to determine whether a particular profession is part of one of the professional categories listed in the Regulations, the Tribunal listed, in paragraph 307 of its decision, the following criteria:
(a) the nature of the duties;
(b) the fact that it is possible to identify an original finished product that is the result of artistic skill;
(c) the fact that the result of the work helps to breathe life into, or realize, the artistic vision of the director, or of a designer or other creator; and
(d) the influence that the individual can exercise, given the hierarchical relationship of the position in the context of the production.
[7] Applicant's counsel submits that in adopting these criteria, the Tribunal toned down and even distorted the meaning of the words "production," "creative aspects" and "directly" that are found in subsection 2(1) of the Regulations. It substituted in place of the obligation to contribute directly to the creative aspects of the production a much less demanding obligation to contribute indirectly to the creation of the production of a work. The applicant relies, in support of his submission, on the French text of subsection 2(1) of the Regulations, where the words "creative aspects of the production" in the English version were rendered in French by the expression "conception de la production", which is much more restrictive and less encompassing in terms of the number of professions that contribute to the creation of a production than the words used in English.
[8] With respect, we think the approach adopted by the Tribunal in determining which professions are covered by subsection 2(1) is consistent with the objective sought by Parliament in subparagraph 6(2)(b)(iii) of the Act and in the English version of subsection 2(1) of the Regulations. Both the French text and the English text of subparagraph 6(2)(b)(iii) of the Act refer to professional categories that "contribute to the creation of any production" ("participent à la création") in the fields that are listed therein. This concept pertaining to the "creation of any production" is also replicated in the English and French versions of subsection 2(1) of the Regulations. The only inconsistency, and it is in this subsection 2(1), derives from the unexpected use in French of the term "conception of a production" in place of "creation of a production" to express the contribution that a profession must make in order to be included in the professional categories covered in paragraphs (a) to (e) of this subsection. The English text, "contributes directly to the creative aspects of the production", continues to refer to the notion of "creation of a production" and to a direct contribution to the creative aspects of that production.
[9] In short, a direct contribution to the creation of a production, and not a direct contribution to the conception of a production, proves to be the common denominator that is found in both the English and French versions of these statutory and regulatory provisions. It is this common concept in both versions that the Tribunal adopted and we are unable to conclude that it misdirected itself in doing so, still less that it exceeded its jurisdiction.
[10] For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed with costs.
"Gilles Létourneau"
Judge
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C Tr, LLL
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-241-03
STYLE: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
FEDERATION CONSISTING OF THE ASSOCIATION DES PROFESSIONNELLES
ET DES PROFESSIONNELS DE LA VIDÉO DU QUÉBEC (APVQ) AND THE SYNDICAT DES TECHNICIENS DU CINÉMA ET DE LA VIDÉO DU QUÉBEC (STCVQ) (NOW KNOWN AS THE ALLIANCE QUÉBÉCOISE DES TECHNICIENS
DE L'IMAGE ET DU SON (AQTIS))
Respondent
and
CANADIAN ARTISTS AND PRODUCERS
PROFESSIONAL RELATIONS TRIBUNAL
Intervener
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: May 18, 2004
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT: (DESJARDINS, LÉTOURNEAU, PELLETIER JJ.A.)
DELIVERED FROM THE
BENCH BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Raymond Piché FOR THE APPLICANT
Daniel Payette FOR THE RESPONDENT
Robert Monette FOR THE INTERVENER
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE APPLICANT
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
Montréal, Quebec
Daniel Payette FOR THE RESPONDENT
Montréal, Quebec
Ogilvy Renault FOR THE INTERVENER
Montréal, Quebec