PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION
|
|
- Abigayle Sullivan
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Citation: Maritime Electric v. Burns & ors. Date: PESCTD 19 Docket:S-1-GS Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Between: And: Maritime Electric Company, Limited Applicant Patrick Aylward, Roddie Campbell and Frank Gillan, a board of arbitrators constituted to hear and determine a grievance that arose under a collective agreement dated August 11, 2001 between Maritime Electric Company, Limited and Local 1432 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Kevin Burns and Local 1432 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Before: Madam Justice Jacqueline R. Matheson Respondents Appearances William G. Lea QC, for the applicant, Maritime Electric Company, Limited Rosemary Scott QC, for the respondent, Kevin Burns & Local 1432 IBEW Place and Date of Hearing Place and Date of Judgment Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island October 3, 2003 Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island March 4, 2004
2 Citation: Maritime Electric v. Burns & ors. Date: PESCTD 19 Docket:S-1-GS Registry: Charlottetown Between: And: Maritime Electric Company, Limited Applicant Patrick Aylward, Roddie Campbell and Frank Gillan, a board of arbitrators constituted to hear and determine a grievance that arose under a collective agreement dated August 11, 2001 between Maritime Electric Company, Limited and Local 1432 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Kevin Burns and Local 1432 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Respondents Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island, Trial Division Matheson J Date of Hearing: October 3, 2003 Date of Judgment: March 4, 2004 ( 13 pages) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Standard of Review - Arbitration Board Interpretation of Collective Agreement - Meaning of every reasonable effort Cases Referred to: Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 (S.C.C.); Ward v. University of Prince Edward Island (1998), 159 Nfld & PEIR 246; Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982; Maritime Electric Company Ltd. v. IBEW, Local 1432, [1993] 2. PEIR 45(A.D.); Dayco (Canada) Ltd. v. CAW - Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 230; Toronto Board of Education v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation, District 15, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 487 (S.C.C.); Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3373 v. Queens County Residential Services Inc. Docket # S-1-AD-0997; Law Society of N.B. v. Ryan, [2003] S.C.C. 20 Justice Iacobucci; Canadian Air Traffic Control Assoc and NAV Canada, [1998] C.L.A.D. No. 734; Re The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community & Social Services) and OPSEU: (1997), 64LAC (4 th ) 22; Re: City of Cornwall and CUPE, Local 3251 (1999), 85 LAC (4 th ) 255; Statutes Referred to: Labour Act R.S.P.E.I Cap. L-1, s. 37 Texts Referred to: R.W. Macaulay & J.L.H. Sprague, Practice and Procedure Before Administrative Tribunals, vol. 4 (Toronto: Carswell) pp & 40-9 Appearances: William G. Lea, Q.C., for the applicant Rosemary Scott, Q.C. for the respondents
3
4 Matheson J.: Facts [1] The applicant, Maritime Electric Company Ltd., seeks judicial review of a decision of Patrick Aylward, Roddie Campbell and Frank Gillan, a board of arbitrators (the Board) constituted to hear and determine a grievance which arose under a collective agreement between the applicant and Local 1432 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (the respondent) and Kevin Burns (Burns). [2] The applicant is a corporation which supplies electricity throughout Prince Edward Island. Burns, an employee of the applicant and a member of the respondent union, filed a grievance under the collective agreement regarding vacation time. The collective agreement provides a grievance procedure to be followed, when either party, or an employee represented by the respondent, alleges a breach of the collective agreement. The grievance procedure is prescribed by s. 37(1) of the Labour Act R.S.P.E.I Cap. L-1, which requires that every collective agreement shall contain a provision for the final and binding settlement by arbitration of all differences between the parties arising from the agreement. [3] Article of the collective agreement provides: When vacations are scheduled every reasonable effort will be made to give the employee the vacation time requested by him/her. Vacations are to be taken during the calendar year. However, if due to work requirements, the Company is unable to grant vacation within the calendar year, such vacation shall be carried over to the following year. [4] The applicant operates two on-island generators, including one in Charlottetown. The system peak is the highest demand put on the power system during any year and this normally occurs in December. When this occurs the Charlottetown steam plant must be operated. Between 1997 and 2001 the Charlottetown steam plant has operated more in December, than in the other eleven months of the year. In 1999, the applicant gave a verbal direction that December would be blocked off for vacations at the Charlottetown steam plant and in 2000 and 2001 December was blocked out in writing. At the same time, Maritime Electric lifted the cap on the number of people who could take vacations simultaneously in the summer. In the spring of 2001, the applicant posted a document on which plant employees could indicate when they wanted to take their vacations with the exception of December, which was blocked off. Burns, a #1 plant operator, was the first employee entitled to claim vacation dates and he did so. He requested three weeks in the summer and the week of December 23 to December 29 as his final vacation week. [5] The December week was not approved and Burns was requested to submit alternative dates. He did not do so and filed a grievance. At the first level of
5 Page: 2 the applicant s reply Burns was advised that, if the plant was not running during the requested period, he would be granted the time requested. This was not acceptable to him and he pursued his grievance. In December, 2001, Burns shift for the week of December 23, 2001, included three twelve hour shifts on Wednesday, December 26, Thursday, December 27, and Friday, December 28. The plant was in operation each day between December 23, 2001, and December 29, During this period the applicant had granted floating vacation time to another #1 operator. [6] The Board determined that in not granting Burns one of his four weeks vacation during the Christmas week, as requested, the applicant had not complied with article of the collective agreement, in that it had not made every reasonable effort to grant Burns request. Issues: Respondent [7] The respondent argued that the applicant had not attacked the Board s decision but only its reasons, which alone are not subject to judicial review. In its notice of application, the applicant alleges that the majority failed to properly exercise their jurisdiction, made a patently unreasonable error of law in arriving at their decision, did not in fact determine whether Maritime Electric had made every reasonable effort to give the employee the vacation time requested, and failed to give reasons which supported their conclusions relying on irrelevant matters, thereby making a patently unreasonable error of law in failing to properly exercise their jurisdiction. Based on the wording of the application itself, it is apparent the applicant is in fact attacking the Board s decision, as opposed to its reasons only. Applicant [8] The applicant raised the following issues: (a) Procedural fairness requires reasons for a decision. (b) Procedural fairness requires reasons to be adequate. (c) The test or standard of review is unreasonableness not patent unreasonableness. (a) Requirement for Reasons [9] The first issue raised by the applicant is whether the Board is required to give reasons for its decision. There is no common law requirement for an administrative tribunal to give reasons for a decision. However, there is a common law requirement for tribunals to provide procedural fairness and procedural fairness may require reasons for a decision, even when there is no such statutory requirement.
6 Page: 3 [10] In Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 (S.C.C.), the court dealt with the issue of reasons as part of the requirement for procedural fairness. The court determined that whether or not reasons are required as a part of procedural fairness depends on various factors, including the nature of the decision being made and the process followed in making it, the nature of its statutory scheme and the terms of the statute under which the decision maker operates, the importance of the decision being made to those affected by it, the legitimate expectations of the person challenging the decision, and the choices of procedure made by the decision maker. [11] Madam Justice L Heureux-Dubé, writing for the majority, discussed each of these elements in paras of her decision. She found that the more the nature of the decision making body, the process provided for making the decision, the function of the tribunal, and the determinations that had to be reached resembled judicial decision-making, the more likely that procedural protections closer to the trial model would be required by the duty of fairness. [12] One must also look at the role of the particular decision within its statutory scheme to determine the procedural protections required: [24]...Greater procedural protections...will be required when no appeal procedure is provided within the statute, or when the decision is determinative of the issue and further requests cannot be submitted...(baker, supra) [13] The third factor to be considered is the importance of the decision to the individual or the individuals affected. The more important the decision is to those affected, and the greater its impact upon them, the more stringent the procedural protections that will be required. This is a significant factor affecting the content of the duty of procedural fairness. [14] The legitimate expectations of the person challenging the decision affects what procedures the duty of fairness requires. Legitimate expectations are part of the doctrine of fairness or natural justice, but do not create substantive rights. [26]...This doctrine, as applied in Canada, is based on the principle that the circumstances affecting procedural fairness take into account the promises or regular practices of administrative decision makers, and that it will generally be unfair for them to act in contravention of representations as to procedure, or to backtrack on substantive promises without according significant procedural rights.(baker, supra) [15] The procedures required by the duty of fairness should also consider the choices of procedure made by the decision maker itself, particularly where the statute leaves to the decision maker the ability to choose its own procedures....important weight must be given to the choice of procedures made by the agency itself and its institutional constraints... (Baker, para. 27). [16] Justice L Heureux Dubé pointed out that this list is not exhaustive and other
7 Page: 4 factors may be important. [28]...The values underlying the duty of procedural fairness relate to the principle that the individual or individuals affected should have the opportunity to present their case fully and fairly, and have decisions affecting their rights, interests, or privileges made using a fair, impartial and open process, appropriate to the statutory, institutional and social context of the decision.(baker, supra) [17] The benefits of reasons include, articulation of the issues and insuring more transparent decision making, allowing the parties to see that the applicable issues have been carefully considered providing a valuable record if the decision is to be appealed or judicially reviewed, and giving those affected by the decision the opportunity to feel that they have been treated fairly and appropriately. [18] Justice L Hereux Dubé concluded at paragraph 43 of Baker: [43] In my opinion, it is now appropriate to recognize that, in certain circumstances, the duty of procedural fairness will require the provision of a written explanation for a decision. The strong arguments demonstrating the advantages of written reasons suggest that, in cases such as this where the decision has important significance for the individual, when there is a statutory right of appeal, or in other circumstances, some form of reasons should be required. This requirement has been developing in the common law elsewhere... [19] The applicant takes the position that the Board was required in the circumstances of this case to give reasons for its decision. The respondents state it was not required to do so. To determine this question one must look at the factors outlined in Baker in relation to the facts of this situation. (i) Resemblance to judicial decision making [20] A review of the grievance and arbitration procedures set out in articles 26 and 27 of the collective agreement shows there is an established procedure with set time limits for dealing with the grievance, and if it is not resolved at the initial stages, reference to arbitration. The collective agreement provides for the establishment of an arbitration board within certain time periods. The actual conduct of proceedings before the board of arbitration is quasi-judicial in nature in that the witnesses are examined and cross-examined under oath, documents are entered into evidence as exhibits, the parties give written or oral argument and, following argument, a decision is prepared. On the other hand, labour arbitration boards are intended to operate as an alternative to the court process to provide prompt and relatively inexpensive resolution of labour disputes. A blanket requirement for reasons could impinge on the benefits of this type of alternative procedure.
8 Page: 5 (ii) Lack of appeal procedures [21] There are no appeal procedures provided in the collective agreement or the Labour Act, but the decision is subject to judicial review. Justice L Heureux Dubé pointed out that greater procedural protections will be required where there is no appeal procedure provided for within the statute. Since there is no appeal procedure provided for, this would seem to militate in favour of a requirement to give reasons. (iii) Importance of decisions to the parties affected [22] With regard to the importance of the decisions to the parties affected, the decision in this case is certainly not as important to the parties as an order for deportation or a decision regarding future employment would be. However, it was of considerable importance to the griever because it is only once in seven years that he has the opportunity to have first choice of vacation dates and it was important for him to be able to spend time at Christmas with his family. In addition, the decision is of importance to the applicant, because it affects its ability to operate the Charlottetown plant during its peak demand period and appears to be the first time this provision of the collective agreement has been interpreted. (iv) Legitimate expectations of the person challenging the decision [23] Legitimate expectations in this circumstance refer to the legitimate expectation that certain procedures will be followed. The applicant pointed out that arbitration decisions are routinely reported in a labour cases and therefore it has legitimate expectation that reasons would be given by this arbitration panel. However, the expectations must be based on some statement or undertaking by or on behalf of the body making the decision, not on the processes of another unrelated decision maker. (R.W. Macaulay & J.L.H. Sprague, Practice and Procedure Before Administrative Tribunals, vol. 4 (Toronto: Carswell) pp & (v) Choices of procedure [24] Regarding the choices of procedure made by the Board itself, there is nothing in this case to indicate that the board took any particular steps to insure a duty of fairness or failed to take any steps which impinged on the duty of fairness. The board has extensive authority over its own procedures, including accepting evidence which may not be admissible in a court of law. [25] Looking at the above factors in the context of the present case, I find that the Board in this case was required to give reasons. This decision was of particular importance to the parties for differing reasons. Burns was anxious to have this vacation time, as it would be seven years before he had the opportunity for first choice again. The applicant is interested in having an interpretation of the
9 Page: 6 clause in question, which would acknowledge the primacy of its operational requirements. Considering it interprets a clause of the collective agreement which affects all unionized employees, the decision has far reaching effects. In these circumstances, reasons are required to provide procedural fairness to all parties. (b) Adequacy of the Board s Reasons [26] Where a Board gives reasons, they must be adequate. Regardless of whether there is duty to give reasons, any reasons given must be adequate. It is not sufficient simply to outline the evidence and argument and to state the tribunal s conclusion. Nor is it sufficient merely to repeat the applicable statutory provisions. That does not reveal the rational for a decision. Grounds must be set out. To be of any value to parties, reasons should explain how the tribunal reached its conclusions, both on fact and on law or policy. The essential findings of fact on which the decision is based should be stated and explanations given for rejecting important items of evidence pertaining to the central facts in issue, including an explanation of findings of credibility....(sara Blake, Administrative Law in Canada, 3 rd, Toronto, Butterworths pp ) [27] The standard of adequacy depends on the context of the case and in assessing the adequacy of the reasons consideration must be given to the entire decision and the context in which it was made. Every case does not require lengthy written explanations. [28] In Ward v. University of Prince Edward Island (1998), 159 Nfld & PEIR 246, a committee of the university senate upheld the decision of a faculty dean to dismiss a student for academic reasons. The committee s decision was worded as follows: The ad hoc Senate Committee on Student Academic Appeals, has unanimously upheld the decision of Dean Heider regarding the dismissal of Mr. Paul Ward from the D.V.M. programme, believing that decision to be in the best interests of the University. ( para 3) [29] Upon judicial review, Justice Jenkins found that given the brevity of the committee s decision it was necessary to examine the record and he did so. He concluded that the committee decision was not unreasonable or based on extraneous considerations, and stated: [19]...It is unfortunate that the Committee s expressed reasons are so confined; however, the Committee s reasons do refer directly to the Dean s decision, which in turn addresses specifically the academic reasons for the dismissal... [30] In Baker, supra, Justice L Heureux Dubé found that the immigration officer s notes on Ms. Baker s application were sufficient to constitute the reasons for
10 the decision. She stated at para. 44: Page: 7 [44]...Accepting documents such as these notes as sufficient reasons is part of the flexibility that is necessary...when courts evaluate the requirements of the duty of fairness with recognition of the day-to-day realities of administrative agencies and the many ways in which the values underlying the principles of procedural fairness can be assured. It upholds the principle that individuals are entitled to fair procedures and open decision-making, but recognizes that in the administrative context, this transparency may take place in various ways... [31] Upon a review of the law submitted by the parties, it appears that reasons given by tribunals need not exhibit the degree of formality required in the judicial process but when given, they must meet the adequacy test. [32] In this case, after reviewing the evidence, the Chair of the Board stated at pp. 13 and 14 of the majority decision: The Employer bound itself to its employees to make every reasonable effort to accommodate the employee s request. Would the reasonable person observing this Employer granting the vacation request say that the Employer acted unreasonably? I don t think so. Some would say that MECL did not run its operation as efficiently as it could have. Those would say that it should have everyone on hand for its peak time. Others would say that MECL made a smart business decision because it rewarded a valued senior employee. These would not that MECL had available two #1 operators on Burns shift. They would note that MECL would be acting prudently to avoid the perception that it was changing the rules in the middle of a rotation that had been followed, and any overtime incurred would be a small price to pay for appearing as a fair employer. These would say granting vacation was a long-term benefit, and any incurred overtime was a worthwhile investment in a climate of increasing demand for generation. I find myself in the latter camp. MECL had two reasonable responses, and it chose the one most favourable to it. Absent a restriction in the Collective Agreement, there is nothing wrong with doing so. But, in this case there is a restriction. The Employer is required to make every reasonable effort. That requires it to choose a response that may not be the one most favourable to it, provided the response requested by the employee is a reasonable one. [33] In short, the majority of the Board found the applicant had chosen the response most favourable to it and had not made every reasonable effort to accommodate the employee s request, as required by the collective agreement. The reasons reveal the rationale for the Board s decision and pointed out options open to the applicant which it had not taken. The reasons are responsive to the issues raised, clearly pointing out that the employer s choice of responses to vacation requests is limited by the wording of the collective agreement. In my view, the Board s reasons meet the adequacy requirement.
11 Page: 8 (c) Standard of Review [34] Before determining whether the decision itself should be set aside one must determine the standard of review. The applicant takes the position that the applicable standard of review is reasonableness simplicitor ; while the respondent states that the applicable standard is patently unreasonable. This standard of review is to be applied to the board s decision and not to its reasons. [35] The Supreme Court of Canada in Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, stated that in determining the applicable standard of review a pragmatic and functional approach must be taken in determining whether the legislature intended the matter to be left to the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal. This test requires the consideration and balancing of the following four factors: (a) the presence or absence of a privative clause; (b) the relative expertise of the decision maker; (c) the purpose of the Act as a whole and the provision in issue in particular; (d) the nature of the problem in question. (a) Privative clause [36] The applicant asserts there is no privative clause in this case and the respondent asserts there is. The Labour Act reads in part: s. 37.(1) Every collective agreement shall contain a provision for the final and binding settlement by arbitration, without stoppage of work, of all differences between the parties arising from the interpretation, application, administration, operation or alleged violation of the agreement, including any question as to whether a matter is arbitrable.... s. 37.(8) An award of an arbitrator or an arbitration board is binding upon all persons bound by the collective agreement and all such persons shall do or abstain from doing anything required of them by the award. [37] In Maritime Electric Company Ltd. v. IBEW, Local 1432, [1993] 2. PEIR 45(A.D.), the Appeal Division of this court found that these provisions, in effect, constitute a privative clause. The court stated at paragraph 19: [19] The board of arbitration is a statutory tribunal created pursuant to the provisions of the Labour Act, R.S.P.E.I Cap. L-1 and is subject to judicial review under the Judicial Review Act. The finality provisions contained in the Labour Act regarding decisions of the Board of Arbitration do not expressly preclude judicial review but arbitration under the Labour
12 Page: 9 Act is compulsory and it is intended to provide a forum for the final and binding resolution of all differences. [38] The court then reviewed the sections in questions and concluded at paragraph 21: [21] The courts have interpreted such finality clauses in the same manner as privative clauses even though they do not expressly forbid judicial review. Accordingly, I find that a privative clause does exist in this case. (b) Relative expertise [39] Labour arbitration boards have been repeatedly recognized by the courts as having expertise in interpreting and applying collective agreements. In Dayco (Canada) Ltd. v. CAW - Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 230 Justice La Forest referred to the expertise of labour arbitration tribunals in the following manner: [19]... This court has stated in previous cases that the court should, as a matter of policy, defer to the expertise of the arbitrator and questions relating to the interpretation of a collective agreements... It is clear that an arbitrator has jurisdiction stricto sensu to interpret the provisions of a collective agreement in the course of determining the arbitrability of matters under that agreement... [40] He continued at paragraph 35 as follows: [35] The jurisprudence of this Court, along with others, is clear on the purpose behind statutory arbitration of collective agreements -- it is to provide for the speedy resolution of disputes over the administration of a collective agreement with minimal judicial intervention;...more generally, administrative tribunals exist to allow decisions to be made by a specialized tribunal with particular expertise in a relevant area of law;...what, then, is the expertise of a labour arbitrator? Undoubtedly it is the interpretation of collective agreements, and the resolution of factual disputes pertaining to them... [41] It is clear that the labour arbitration boards are held to have expertise in interpreting and applying collective agreements. (c) Legislative purpose [42] The purpose of the Labour Act as a whole and the provision for arbitration in particular is to facilitate the reasonably rapid resolution of disputes arising from the collective agreement without a stoppage of work. As Justice Corey pointed out in the case of Toronto Board of Education v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation, District 15, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 487 (S.C.C.) at paragraph 35: There are a great many reasons why curial deference must be
13 Page: 10 observed in such decisions. The field of labour relations is sensitive and volatile. It is essential that there be a means of providing speedy decisions by experts in the field who are sensitive to the situation, and which can be considered by both sides to be final and binding. 36. In particular, it has been held that the whole purpose of a system of grievance arbitration is to secure prompt, final and binding settlement of disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of collective agreements and the disciplinary actions taken by an employer. This is a basic requirement for peace in industrial relations which is important to the parties and to society as a whole.... [43] The Labour Act establishes the arbitration board as a means of settling disputes arising from the collective agreement, other than the courts. The deliberate establishment of this procedure by the legislature strengthens the board s claim to a higher degree of deference. (d) Nature of the problem [44] The issue before the board in this case was whether or not the employer had made every reasonable effort to give the employee the vacation time requested by him, which involved an interpretation of a particular clause in the collective agreement. This problem is precisely what the board is designed to do ascertain the facts, interpret the provision of the collective agreement and apply that provision to the facts and reach a conclusion. [45] The presence of a finality/privative clause, the relative expertise of the board as a decision maker, the purpose of the act as a whole, the specific provision for arbitration boards as a means to resolve labour relations disputes, the nature of the problem, the interpretation of a provision of the collective agreement and its application point to a requirement for the highest degree of deference to the board. Accordingly, the standard of review applicable to the board s findings is the patently unreasonable test. This is the position taken by the Appeal Division of this court in many cases, including most recently its decision in Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3373 v. Queens County Residential Services Inc. Docket # S-1-AD-0997, January 28, Meaning of Patently Unreasonable [46] Having determined the test to be used is the patently unreasonable test, one must look at the meaning of patently unreasonable. In Law Society of N.B. v. Ryan, [2003] S.C.C. 20 Justice Iacobucci, writing for the court, again reviewed the approach a court should take in reviewing the decision of administrative tribunals. A court should employ a pragmatic and functional approach to determine the appropriate level of deference, which will, in turn, determine which of the three standards of review the court should apply to the decision; correctness, reasonableness simplicitor, or patent unreasonableness.
14 Page: 11 [47] In Ryan, supra although the court applied the standard of reasonableness simplicitor, it also discussed the standard of patent unreasonableness in the following terms at para. 52: 52. The standard of reasonableness simpliciter is also very different from the more differential standard of patent unreasonableness. In Southam, supra, at para. 57, the Court described the difference between an unreasonable decision and a patently unreasonable one as rooted in the immediacy or obviousness of the defect. Another way to say this is that a patently unreasonable defect, once identified, can be explained simply and easily, leaving no real possibility of doubting that the decision is defective. A patently unreasonable decision has been described as clearly irrational or evidently not in accordance with reason (Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 941 at pp ,per Corey J.; Centre communautaire juridique de l Estrie v. Sherbrooke (City), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 84 at paras 9-12, per Gontier J.) A decision that is patently unreasonable is so flawed that no amount of curial deference can justify letting it stand. [48] In this case, the Board reviewed the evidence and determined that the question was not about the applicant s blocking out the whole month of December as a non vacation period, but was limited to whether the applicant had made every reasonable effort to accommodate Burns for the week in December, which he had selected. The applicant admitted the obligation to make every reasonable effort applied to the blocked out period of December and that the applicant s response could be affected by the type of work the employee did. The Board found as a fact that the applicant s denial of Burns vacation request was for legitimate business reasons and this was a reasonable response to the vacation request. It then stated that even if this was a reasonable response, the question was whether it was a response permitted by the collective agreement. The collective agreement requires every reasonable effort to be made by the applicant. [49] The Board pointed out that the applicant had two reasonable responses available to it and it chose the one most favourable to it. However, the restriction in the collective agreement that it must make every reasonable effort, requires a response which may not be the most favourable to the applicant, provided the response requested by the employee, Burns, is a reasonable one. The Board concluded this issue would arise with each individual who requests vacation in December and the response may vary accordingly, based on a number of factors. The majority of the Board concluded that the applicant had not made every reasonable effort to accommodate Burns request. [50] The applicant argues that once the Board determined that the applicant s response to Burns vacation request was reasonable, the grievance should have been dismissed. The applicant is only required to make every reasonable
15 Page: 12 effort to grant requests, thus implying there will be occasions when it cannot meet the employee s request. This may well be so, but the applicant employer s obligation under the agreement is not just to behave reasonably. It must make every reasonable effort to accommodate the employee s vacation request. In Canadian Air Traffic Control Assoc and NAV Canada, [1998] C.L.A.D. No. 734, J. Christie, Arbitrator, stated at para 72 that while every reasonable effort is not open ended, the employer must satisfy the arbitrator that it has met the requisite level of effort. [51] In Re The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community & Social Services) and OPSEU: (1997), 64LAC (4 th ) 22, the Ontario Crown Employee s Grievance Board defined every reasonable effort as follows at p. 35:...First and foremost, as employer counsel argued, making reasonable efforts does not mean every effort or all efforts. It means making efforts that are reasonable all things considered, and that will, given that this is a broadly worded clause of general application, depend on particular circumstances of individual cases. [52] What constitutes every reasonable effort is a question of fact to be determined in every set of circumstances. In Re: City of Cornwall and CUPE, Local 3251 (1999), 85 LAC (4 th ) 255, the arbitrator discussed what must be considered to act reasonably in considering vacation requests, at p. 268: The grievor s job does not involve the provision of essential services, nor does it apparently require to be performed at any specified time. In order to decide whether a specific vacation request could reasonably be declined, it would be necessary to take into account such factors as the overall expense to the Employer, the reasons for the grievor in requesting a particular vacation schedule, the possibility of adjusting the instructional schedule to accommodate the grievor s vacation requests without requiring her specific replacement at the City s expense, and the proportion of the overall agreed schedule of vacation which accommodates the City s desire for efficiency and financial responsibility with the grievor s desire for a vacation schedule which accommodates to a reasonable degree her personal preferences. [53] The case law referred to by counsel indicates that when considering whether an employer has made every reasonable effort to accommodate any employee s vacation request, an arbitration board should consider what the employer did and did not do to respond to the request, and all issues including operational factors, employee preferences, length of service and why a particular period is being selected. The majority decision in this case did consider all of these factors and found that as the employer had only considered operational issues, it had not made every reasonable effort. [54] A review of the Board s majority decision does not reveal that it is immediately obvious there is no tenable line of argument to support the Board s decision. Accordingly it has passed the patently unreasonable test and the Board s decision should stand.
16 Page: 13 Matheson J. March 4, 2004
PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. Thomas Walker. Certified General Accountants of Prince Edward Island
PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Citation: Walker v. CGAs of PEI & Ano. 2005 PESCTD 49 Date: 20050930 Docket: S1-GS-20476 Registry: Charlottetown Between: And: Thomas
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Page: 1 SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: IRAC v. Privacy Commissioner & D.B.S. 2012 PESC 25 Date: 20120831 Docket: S1-GS-23775 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Island Regulatory and Appeal
More informationCitation: Jenkins v. HRC & ors. Date: PESCTD 34 Docket: S-1-GS Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Jenkins v. HRC & ors. Date: 20030404 2003 PESCTD 34 Docket: S-1-GS-19359 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISL IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN Ronald Jenkins The
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Cal-terra Developments Ltd. v. Hunter, 2017 BCSC 1320 Date: 20170728 Docket: 15-4976 Registry: Victoria Re: Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.B.C. 1996,
More informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION Citation: CUPE v. Residential Services Inc. 2004 PESCAD 2 Date: 20040128 Docket: S1-AD-0997 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN:
More informationTHE ASSINIBOINE SOUTH TEACHERS ' ASSOCIATION OF THE MANITOBA TEACHERS' SOCIETY (Applicant) Respondent. - and -
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Philp, Twaddle and Kroft JJ.A. Citation: Assiniboine South Teachers' Association v. Assiniboine South School Division No. 3, 2000 MBCA 9 Date: 20000616 Docket:
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Weir s Construction Limited v. Warford (Estate), 2018 NLCA 5 Date: January 22, 2018 Docket: 201601H0092 BETWEEN: WEIR S CONSTRUCTION
More informationSASKATCHEWAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW UPDATE
SASKATCHEWAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW UPDATE Larry Seiferling, Q.C., Partner, McDougall Gauley LLP Angela Giroux, Associate, McDougall Gauley LLP (a) Introduction There are few, if any, issues that have arisen
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 19980707 Docket: GSC-16600 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: ADMINISTRATOR OF THE PRIVATE TRAINING SCHOOLS ACT, R.S.P.E.I. 1988,
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION
Citation: Society of Lloyd s v. McNeill Date: 20030924 2003 PESCTD 76 Docket: S-1-GS-19948 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION In the Matter of
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Scott v. British Columbia (The Police Complaint Commissioner), 2017 BCSC 961 Jason Scott Date: 20170609 Docket: S164838 Registry: Vancouver
More informationPage: 2 In the Matter of In the Matter of the Workers Compensation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c.w-15, As Amended ( WCA ) And in the Matter of a Decision by the
Court of Queen s Bench of Alberta Citation: Homes by Avi Ltd. v. Alberta (Workers Compensation Board, Appeals Commission), 2007 ABQB 203 Date: 20070326 Docket: 0603 14909, 0603 14405, 0603 12833 Registry:
More informationPerspective National Administrative Law, Labour & Employment Law and Privacy & Thora Sigurdson Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
Administrative Law Update A West Coast Perspective 2010 National Administrative Law, Labour & Employment Law and Privacy & Access Law Conference Thora Sigurdson Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP Introduction
More informationCitation: Polar Foods v. Jensen Date: PESCTD 63 Docket: S-1-GS Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Polar Foods v. Jensen Date: 20020924 2002 PESCTD 63 Docket: S-1-GS-18910 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: POLAR FOODS INTERNATIONAL
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION
Citation: Society of Lloyd s v. McNeill Date: 20031107 2003 PESCTD 88 Docket: S-1-GS-19948 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION In the Matter of
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION LAW SOCIETY OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Date: 19980514 Docket: GSC-16464 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: LAW SOCIETY OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND APPLICANT AND: PAULA M. MacKINNON
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. Patrick Jay
Citation: Jay v. DHL Express Date: 20060103 2006 PESCTD 01 Docket: S1 GS-18505 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Between: And: Patrick Jay DHL
More informationThe Labour Relations Board Saskatchewan. MARVIN TAYLOR, Applicant and REGINA POLICE ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent
The Labour Relations Board Saskatchewan MARVIN TAYLOR, Applicant and REGINA POLICE ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent LRB File No. 016-03; June 25, 2003 Chairperson, Gwen Gray, Q.C.; Members: Gloria Cymbalisty
More informationBetween: Canada Post Corporation (Canada Post)
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Canada Post Corporation v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers, 2010 NSSC 336 Date: 20100827 Docket: Hfx. No. 326201 Registry: Halifax Between: Canada Post Corporation
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Between: Gabriel Elbaz, Sogelco International Inc. and Summerside Seafood Supreme Inc.
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Summerside Seafood v. Gov PEI 2012 PESC 4 Date: January 30, 2012 Docket: S1-GS-20942 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Gabriel Elbaz, Sogelco International
More informationAdministrative Law Update A West Coast Perspective
Administrative Law Update A West Coast Perspective These materials were prepared by Thora Sigurdson of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Vancouver, BC, for the 2010 National Administrative Law, Labour & Employment
More informationThe Constitutional Validity of Bill S-201. Presentation to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
The Constitutional Validity of Bill S-201 Presentation to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights Professor Bruce Ryder Osgoode Hall Law School, York University 22 November 2016 I am pleased
More informationRULE 21 DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE BEFORE TRIAL WHERE AVAILABLE To any Party on a Question of Law (1) A party may move before a judge, (a) for
RULE 21 DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE BEFORE TRIAL WHERE AVAILABLE To any Party on a Question of Law 21.01 (1) A party may move before a judge, (a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN LESLIE CAMERON KING
PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Citation: R. v. King 2008 PESCTD 18 Date: 20080325 Docket: S1-GC-572 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN LESLIE
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20180612 Docket: CI 16-01-03007 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Sekhon v. Minister of Education and Training Cited as: 2018 MBQB 99 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA B E T W E E N: NARINDER KAUR SEKHON,
More informationCitation: R. v. R.C. (P.) Date: PESCTD 22 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: R. v. R.C. (P.) Date: 2000308 2000 PESCTD 22 Docket: GSC-17475 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND: PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Hyson v. Nova Scotia (Public Service LTD), 2016 NSSC 153
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Hyson v. Nova Scotia (Public Service LTD), 2016 NSSC 153 Date: 2016-06-16 Docket: Hfx No. 447446 Registry: Halifax Between: Annette Louise Hyson Applicant v. Nova
More informationKhosa: Extending and Clarifying Dunsmuir
Khosa: Extending and Clarifying Dunsmuir Andrew Wray, Pinto Wray James LLP Christian Vernon, Pinto Wray James LLP [awray@pintowrayjames.com] [cvernon@pintowrayjames.com] Introduction The Supreme Court
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And And Before: Burnaby (City) v. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, 2014 BCCA 465 City of Burnaby Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC The National Energy Board
More informationPurpose, Scope and Law relating to Examination & Cross of Witnesses in Arbitration proceedings 1. S Ravi Shankar 2
Purpose, Scope and Law relating to Examination & Cross of Witnesses in Arbitration proceedings 1 S Ravi Shankar 2 Globally arbitration is becoming popular for various reasons and as per a recent survey
More informationInformation Brief. British Columbia Law Institute Workplace Dispute Resolution Consultation. British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal Suite 1170, 605 Robson St. Vancouver BC V6B 5J3 Phone: (604) 775-2000 Toll Free: 1-888-440-8844 TTY: (604) 775-2021 FAX: (604) 775-2020 Internet: www.bchrt.bc.ca
More informationReview of Administrative Decisions Involving Charter Rights: The Shortcomings of the SCC Decision in Doré
Review of Administrative Decisions Involving Charter Rights: The Shortcomings of the SCC Decision in Doré February 24, 2014, OTTAWA Distinct But Overlapping: Administrative Law and the Charter Over the
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Lymburner v. Nova Scotia (Health and Wellness) 2016 NSSC 23
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Lymburner v. Nova Scotia (Health and Wellness) 2016 NSSC 23 Date: 20160118 Docket: Hfx No. 435272 Registry: Halifax Between: Dr. Dana Lymburner v. Applicant Her Majesty
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: PEI Protestant Children s Trust and Province of PEI and S. Marshall 2014 PESC 6 Date:20140225 Docket: S1-GS-20889 Registry: Charlottetown Between: And: And:
More informationCitation: Duffy Const. v. Dennis Const Date: PESCTD 95 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Duffy Const. v. Dennis Const Date: 20001205 2000 PESCTD 95 Docket: GSC-17689 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: AND: DUFFY
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Skinner v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal), 2018 NSCA 23
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Skinner v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal), 2018 NSCA 23 Date: 20180309 Docket: CA 449275 Registry: Halifax Between: Wayne Skinner v. Workers Compensation
More informationbecause she had returned from maternity leave and parental leave, the employer had
MANITOBA HUMAN RIGHTS BOARD OF ADJUDICATION IN THE MATTER OF a complaint made under The Human Rights Code, CCSM c. H175 BETWEEN MHRC File No.: 17 LP 12 AND AND Robin Rankin, complainant, Government of
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Noël Ayangma. Canada Health Infoway Inc. PEI Human Rights Commission
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Ayangma v Infoway 2009 PESC 24 Date: 20090814 Docket: S1-GS-22233 Registry: Charlottetown Between: And: And: Noël Ayangma Canada Health Infoway Inc. PEI
More informationPRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
a55 PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Fifth Edition by David Philip Jones, Q.C. B.A.(Hons.) (McGill), B.C.L., M.A. (Oxon.) and Anne S. de Villars, Q.C. B.Sc. (Southampton), LL.B. (Alberta) both of de Villars
More informationCitation: Action Press v. PEITF Date: PESCTD 02 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Action Press v. PEITF Date: 20020114 2002 PESCTD 02 Docket: GSC-18145 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: AND: CARRUTHERS ENTERPRISES
More informationThe Arbitration Act, 1992
1 The Arbitration Act, 1992 being Chapter A-24.1* of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1992 (effective April 1, 1993) as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1993, c.17; 2010, c.e-9.22; 2015, c.21; and
More informationThe Exercise of Statutory Discretion
The Exercise of Statutory Discretion CACOLE Conference June 9, 2009 Professor Lorne Sossin University of Toronto, Faculty of Law R. Lester Jesudason Chair, Nova Scotia Police Review Board Tom Bell Counsel,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA
Citation: Dorn v Association of Professional Engineers Date: 20180305 and Geoscientists of the Province of Manitoba, Docket: AI17-30-08819 2018 MBCA 18 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Mr. Justice
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Reed v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2017 NSSC 85
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Reed v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2017 NSSC 85 Date: 2017-03-28 Docket: Hfx. No. 456782 Registry: Halifax Between: Warren Reed, Gerry Post, Ben Marson,
More informationRunning head: JUDICIAL REVIEW OF OLRB AND LABOUR ARBITRATION DECISIONS 1. Judicial Review of Labour Relations Board and Labour Arbitration Decisions
Running head: JUDICIAL REVIEW OF OLRB AND LABOUR ARBITRATION DECISIONS 1 Judicial Review of Labour Relations Board and Labour Arbitration Decisions in the Post-Dunsmuir Period in Ontario Luba Yurchak JUDICIAL
More informationThe Honourable Madam Justice Linda K. Webber
Date: 1 9981009 Docket: CSC-15372 Registy: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION GRAHAM TUPLIN AND: APPLICANT (APPELLANT) REGISTRAR, INDIAN & NORTHERN AFFAIRS
More informationInquiry of the Special Advisor on Federal Court Prothonotaries Compensation
Inquiry of the Special Advisor on Federal Court Prothonotaries Compensation CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION February 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Inquiry of the Special Advisor on Federal Court Prothonotaries Compensation
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: British Columbia (Ministry of Justice) v. Maddock, 2015 BCSC 746 Date: 20150423 Docket: 14-3365 Registry: Victoria In the matter of the decisions of the
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Citation: Lank v. Government of PEI 2010 PESC 09 Date: Docket: S1-GS Registry: Charlottetown
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Lank v. Government of PEI 2010 PESC 09 Date: 20100218 Docket: S1-GS-16828 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Stephen Lank and Stephen Lank Enterprises Inc.
More informationADMINISTRATIVE LAW LAW COURSE SYLLABUS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LAW 372-003 COURSE SYLLABUS Instructor: David E. Gruber, F.C.I.Arb., B.Sc.Arch. (McGill), J.D. (U. of Vic), LL.M (Cantab) Contact: dgruber@mail.ubc.ca; (604) 661-9361 M-F 9:00 a.m. to
More informationCitation: Trans Canada Credit v. Judson Date: PESCTD 57 Docket: SCC Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Trans Canada Credit v. Judson Date: 20020906 2002 PESCTD 57 Docket: SCC-22372 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: TRANS CANADA
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: West Vancouver Police Department v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2016 BCSC 934 Date: 20160525 Docket: S152619 Registry: Vancouver
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. Against. Gerard Joseph MacDonald
PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Citation: R v. MacDonald 2007 PESCTD 29 Date: 20070820 Docket: S1 GC-556 Registry: Charlottetown Between Her Majesty the Queen Against
More informationJUDICIAL REVIEW OF ARBITRATION DECISIONS
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ARBITRATION DECISIONS Working Paper 2003-03 by Erika L. Ringseis and Allen Ponak Erika Ringseis(Ph.D., L.L.B.) is an articling student at Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP in Calgary. Allen
More informationCBABC POSITION PAPER ON THE CIVIL RESOLUTION TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 (BILL 22) Prepared by: Canadian Bar Association, BC Branch
CBABC POSITION PAPER ON THE CIVIL RESOLUTION TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 (BILL 22) Prepared by: Canadian Bar Association, BC Branch May 8, 2018 Introduction In April 2012, the government of British Columbia
More informationIN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION under the Police Services Act. - and - AND in the matter of the individual grievance of Const. P.
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION under the Police Services Act BETWEEN: BARRIE POLICE SERVICES BOARD (The Board ) - and - BARRIE POLICE ASSOCIATION (The Association ) AND in the matter of the individual
More informationAdministrative Tribunals Applying the Charter: Not Just a Holy Grail for Courts
+ Administrative Tribunals Applying the Charter: Not Just a Holy Grail for Courts A. Wayne MacKay, C.M., Q.C. Professor of Law, Dalhousie University Schulich School of Law *The author gratefully acknowledges
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bridgewater (Town) v. South Shore Regional School Board, 2017 NSSC 25. v. South Shore Regional School Board
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bridgewater (Town) v. South Shore Regional School Board, 2017 NSSC 25 Date: 20161220 Docket: Bwt No. 457414 Registry: Bridgewater Between: Town of Bridgewater v.
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. Her Majesty the Queen. against. Corey Blair Clarke
Citation: R v Clarke Date:20050216 2005 PCSCTD 10 Docket:S 1 GC 384 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Her Majesty the Queen against Corey Blair
More informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL. JOHN McGOWAN and CAROLYN McGOWAN THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL Citation: McGowan v. Bank of Nova Scotia 2011 PECA 20 Date: 20111214 Docket: S1-CA-1202 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND:
More informationAdministrative Penalties
Administrative Penalties Final Report March 2012 Administrative penalties are a mechanism for enforcing compliance with regulatory legislation. They are monetary penalties assessed and imposed by a regulator
More informationSupreme Court of Canada considers sanctions imposed by Securities Regulators -- Re: Cartaway Resources Corp, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 672 Douglas Worndl
Supreme Court of Canada considers sanctions imposed by Securities Regulators -- Re: Cartaway Resources Corp, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 672 Douglas Worndl February 2005 In April of 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, and- IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION. HÔTEL-DIEU GRACE HOSPITAL - the Employer.
IN THE MATTER OF THE ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, 1995 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: HÔTEL-DIEU GRACE HOSPITAL - the Employer -and- -and- NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, TRANSPORTATION AND
More informationCase Name: Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board)
Page 1 Case Name: Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board) Cuddy Chicks Limited, appellant; v. Ontario Labour Relations Board and United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local
More informationThe Canadian Institute ADVANCED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & PRACTICE May 1 and 2, 2008
The Canadian Institute ADVANCED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & PRACTICE May 1 and 2, 2008 MANAGING YOUR MULTIPLE ROLES AS TRIBUNAL COUNSEL By Gilbert Van Nes, General Counsel & Settlement Officer Alberta Environmental
More informationRestorative Boards of Inquiry: Fostering Dignity and Respectful, Responsible Relationships Draft Framework and Procedures April, 2012
2012 Restorative Boards of Inquiry: Fostering Dignity and Respectful, Responsible Relationships Draft Framework and Procedures April, 2012 The Human Rights Commission seeks to further human rights by promoting
More informationAhani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 72, 2002
Ahani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 72, 2002 SCC 2 Mansour Ahani Appellant v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Attorney General of Canada Respondents
More informationCOURT FILE NO.: 07-CV DATE: SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: A1 PRESSURE SENSITIVE PRODUCTS INC. (Plaintiff) v. BOSTIK IN
COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-344028 DATE: 20091218 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: A1 PRESSURE SENSITIVE PRODUCTS INC. (Plaintiff) v. BOSTIK INC. (Defendant) Justice Stinson COUNSEL: Kevin D. Sherkin,
More informationThe Standard for Judicial Intervention in Decisions of Administrative Tribunals: Curial Deference in 1993
The Standard for Judicial Intervention in Decisions of Administrative Tribunals: Curial Deference in 1993 John L. FINLAY* 1 INTRODUCTION... 2 I. THE STANDARD OF REVIEW... 3 ]II. PRIVATIVE CLAUSES... 4
More informationINFORMATION BULLETIN
INFORMATION BULLETIN #25 REVIEW OF ARBITRATIONS - TRANSITIONAL I. INTRODUCTION Most collective agreements provide for grievance arbitration as the method for resolving disputes over the meaning or application
More informationThe Future of Administrative Justice. Current Issues in Tribunal Independence
The Future of Administrative Justice Current Issues in Tribunal Independence I will begin with the caveat that one always has to enter whenever one embarks on a discussion of Canadian administrative justice,
More informationARBITRATION BULLETIN. Can a teacher tell her students she's a lesbian?
ARBITRATION BULLETIN October 21, 1998 No. 03-98 Article reproduced with permission of Lancaster House, 20 Dundas Street West, Toronto www.lancasterhouse.com ARBITRABILITY WIDENED Can a teacher tell her
More informationTABLE OF CONTENTS. Foreword xix Preface xxi Introductory Note xxiii CHAPTER 1 THE ROLE OF APPELLATE TRIBUNALS 1
Foreword xix Preface xxi Introductory Note xxiii CHAPTER 1 THE ROLE OF APPELLATE TRIBUNALS 1 PART 1 Why Standards of Review? 2 PART 2 Why Review? 5 (a) The Error Correcting Role 5 (b) The Call for Universality
More informationRE: The Board s refusal to allow public access to the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Hearings
Direct Line: 604-630-9928 Email: Laura@bccla.org BY EMAIL January 20, 2016 Peter Watson, Chair National Energy Board 517 Tenth Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2R 0A8 RE: The Board s refusal to allow public
More informationConstitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue
Constitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue David Stratas Introduction After much controversy, 1 the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that tribunals that have
More informationRecent Developments in the Canadian Law of Contract
Honest Performance and Absolutely Everything Else By Ryan P. Krushelnitzky and Sandra L. Corbett QC Recent Developments in the Canadian Law of Contract Bhasin and Sattva represent important changes and
More informationIntroductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario
Introductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario Table of Contents INTRODUCTION This guide contains an overview of the Canadian legal system and court structure as well as key procedural and substantive
More informationCORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF GREY (GREY COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES)
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF GREY (GREY COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES) AND ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION POLICY GRIEVANCE JOB POSTING BEFORE: S.L. STEWART ARBITRATOR
More informationWeir v. Canada (Registrar of Firearms), 2008 ABPC 18,
The Shotgun Approach to Judicial Review By Jonnette Watson Hamilton and Shaun Fluker Weir v. Canada (Registrar of Firearms), 2008 ABPC 18, http://www2.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003-/pc/civil/2008/2008abpc0018.pdf
More informationDr. Nael Bunni, Chairman, Dispute Resolution Panel, Engineers Ireland, 22 Clyde Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4. December 2000.
Preamble This Arbitration Procedure has been prepared by Engineers Ireland principally for use with the Engineers Ireland Conditions of Contract for arbitrations conducted under the Arbitration Acts 1954
More informationTHE LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c. 9. and a hearing concerning GEORGE COUTLEE RESPONDENT
2018 LSBC 33 Decision issued: November 16, 2018 Citation issued: July 13, 2017 THE LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c. 9 and a hearing concerning GEORGE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Nuttall, 2016 BCSC 73 Regina v. John Stuart Nuttall and Amanda Marie Korody Date: 20160111 Docket: 26392 Registry: Vancouver Restriction on Publication:
More informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION Citation: Ayangma v. The Attorney General (P.E.I.) 2004 PESCAD 11 Date: 20040623 Docket: S1-AD-1006 Registry: Charlottetown
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Origin: Appeal from a decision of the Master of the Court of Queen's Bench, dated June 5, 2013 Date: 20131213 Docket: CI 13-01-81367 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Jewish Community Campus of Winnipeg Inc.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Gosselin v. Shepherd, 2010 BCSC 755 April Gosselin Date: 20100527 Docket: S104306 Registry: New Westminster Plaintiff Mark Shepherd and Dr.
More informationSupremacy and Curial Deference: The Supreme Court of Canada s Approach to Statutory Interpretation by Administrative Tribunals
Supremacy and Curial Deference: The Supreme Court of Canada s Approach to Statutory Interpretation by Administrative Tribunals Hon. Harvey M. Groberman Justice of the British Columbia Court of Appeal When
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 231, 2015 ONCA 520 DATE: 20150709 DOCKET: C59661 BETWEEN Laskin, Lauwers and Hourigan JJ.A.
More informationUniform Arbitration Act
2-1 Uniform Law Conference of Canada Uniform Act 2-2 Table of Contents INTRODUCTORY MATTERS 1 Definitions 2 Application of Act 3 Contracting out 4 Waiver of right to object 5 agreements COURT INTERVENTION
More informationMANITOBA HUMAN RIGHTS BOARD OF ADJUDICATION. The Human Rights Code, C.C.S.M. c. H175, as amended;
MANITOBA HUMAN RIGHTS BOARD OF ADJUDICATION IN THE MATTER OF: The Human Rights Code, C.C.S.M. c. H175, as amended; IN THE MATTER OF: A Complaint by Glenn Dick against The Pepsi Bottling Group (Canada),
More informationAlberta (Attorney General) v. Krushell, 2003 ABQB 252 Date: Action No
Alberta (Attorney General) v. Krushell, 2003 ABQB 252 Date: 20030318 Action No. 0203 19075 IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON IN THE MATTER OF the Freedom of Information
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Citation: Cairns v Bd. of School Trustees & Ors 2009 PESC 03 GORDON CAIRNS
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Cairns v Bd. of School Trustees & Ors 2009 PESC 03 Court File No. S2-GS-5182 Date: 20090128 Registry: Summerside BETWEEN: GORDON CAIRNS PLAINTIFF (RESPONDENT)
More informationADMINISTRATIVE FAIRNESS GUIDEBOOK
ADMINISTRATIVE FAIRNESS GUIDEBOOK Introduction This guidebook has been created to help you learn how the Alberta Ombudsman investigates complaints of unfair treatment by Alberta government departments,
More informationand THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA AND CLIFFS NATURAL RESOURCES INC ORDER
Federal Court Cour fédérale Date: 20130315 Docket: T-1820-11 Ottawa, Ontario, March 15, 2013 PRESENT: Madam Prothonotary Aronovitch BETWEEN: MARTEN FALLS FIRST NATION, WEBEQUIE FIRST NATION, NIBINAMIK
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, 1995 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
IN THE MATTER OF THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, 1995 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ALGOMA STEEL INC. (hereinafter the Company ) AND UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 2251 (hereinafter the
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case No: JR 2500/10 In the matter between: MOGALE CITY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Applicant and SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL
More informationWhen should members of the Canadian Forces (CF) retain private legal counsel, and how should such counsel be employed?
When should members of the Canadian Forces (CF) retain private legal counsel, and how should such counsel be employed? Lieutenant-Colonel (retired) Rory Fowler, CD, BComm, LL.B., LL.M. Cunningham, Swan,
More informationCANADIAN RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION CASE NO Heard in Edmonton, March 14, Concerning CANADIAN PACIFIC.
CANADIAN RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION CASE NO. 4620 Heard in Edmonton, March 14, 2018 Concerning CANADIAN PACIFIC And TEAMSTERS CANADA RAIL CONFERENCE DISPUTE: A: Appeal of 30 day
More informationDenial of Reinstatement After Unjust Discharge Again
May 2013 Labour & Employment Law Section Denial of Reinstatement After Unjust Discharge Again Andrea Bowker A recent case involving the discharge of an employee after a workplace dispute with a co-worker
More informationCanada Industrial Relations Board: 10 Key Points
Canada Industrial Relations Board: 10 Key Points The Six-Minute Labour Lawyer 2010 The Law Society of Upper Canada Toronto, Ontario June 15, 2010 Graham J. Clarke Vice-Chairperson Canada Industrial Relations
More informationGOODHUE, D. (OPSEU) v. CENTENNIAL COLLEGE (Samuels) December 8, 1988
HEADNOTE Board of Arbitration OPSEU #88A629 Dismissal GOODHUE, D. (OPSEU) v. CENTENNIAL COLLEGE (Samuels) December 8, 1988 The grievor was a probationary employee who grieved he had been terminated in
More information