Noël v. Société d'énergie de la Baie James, (2001) 271 N.R. 304 (SCC)

• Judge: L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 28, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2001), 271 N.R. 304 (SCC);2001 SCC 39;AZ-50098272;[2001] 2 SCR 207;202 DLR (4th) 1;[2001] SCJ No 41 (QL);271 NR 304

Noël v. Baie James Hydro (2001), 271 N.R. 304 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2001] N.R. TBEd. JN.044

Christian Noël (appelant) c. La Société d'énergie de la Baie James (intimée) et Le Syndicat des métallurgistes unis d'Amérique, section locale 6833 (F.T.Q.) and Bernard Lefebvre (mis en cause)

(26914; 2001 SCC 39)

Indexed As: Noël v. Société d'énergie de la Baie James

Supreme Court of Canada

L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.

June 28, 2001.

Summary:

The union representing a dismissed employee grieved the employee's dismissal. An arbitrator dismissed the grievance. The employee filed an application for judicial review under art. 846 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Que.) The employer replied with a motion to dismiss.

The Quebec Superior Court allowed the employer's motion. The employee then brought a direct action in nullity of the arbitrator's decision under art. 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The employer again moved for dismissal.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision summarised at J.E. 94-1854, allowed the employer's motion. The employee appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, Robert, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported [1998] R.J.Q. 2270, dismissed the appeal. The employee appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Labour Law - Topic 2706

Unions - Duties - To represent members of bargaining unit - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the principle of exclus­ive union representation under Quebec labour law and the scope of the duty of represen­tation - See paragraphs 41 to 55.

Labour Law - Topic 2707

Unions - Duties - To represent members of bargaining unit - Remedies - A union­ized employee invoked art. 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Que.) and brought a direct action in nullity of an unfavourable grievance arbitration decision - The union had not sought judicial review - The action was dismissed because the employee lacked sufficient interest to bring the pro­ceeding - The Supreme Court of Canada held: "Allowing an employee to take action against a decision made by his or her union, by applying for judicial review where he or she believes that the arbitra­tion award was unreasonable, would offend the union's exclusive right of repre­senta­tion and the legislative intent regard­ing the finality of the arbitration process, and would jeopardize the effectiveness and speed of the arbitration process" - See paragraphs 56 to 63.

Labour Law - Topic 7121

Industrial relations - Collective agreement -Enforcement - Arbitration - Judicial review - Parties - [See Labour Law - Topic 2707 ].

Labour Law - Topic 7121

Industrial relations - Collective agreement -Enforcement - Arbitration - Judicial review - Parties - A unionized employee invoked art. 33 of the Code of Civil Pro­cedure (Que.) and brought a direct action in nul­lity of an unfavourable grievance arbitra­tion decision - The union had not sought judicial review - The action alleged only that the arbitrator's decision was patently unreasonable and that the union refused to challenge the legality of the arbitrator's decision - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the dismissal of the action because the employee lacked suffi­cient interest under art. 55 of the Code to bring the proceeding - The union acted within the reasonable exercise of its dis­cretion in the conduct of collective labour relations with the employer and the empl­oyee's interest had to be interpreted and assessed in the context of a labour rela­tions scheme based on collective bargain­ing and the union's monopoly on represen­tation - The court added that an action in nullity could be available for cases of union-employer collusion, fraud or bad faith - See para­graphs 64 to 70.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 102

Capacity to sue - Sufficient interest - Gen­eral - The Supreme Court of Canada held: "The existence of an interest in brin­ging a judicial proceeding depends on the exist­ence of a substantive right. It is not enough to assert that a procedure exists. A right enforceable by the courts must be asserted. This understanding of the concept of inter­est thus calls for consideration of the sub­stantive law on which the cause of action is based" - See paragraphs 37 to 38.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 102

Capacity to sue - Sufficient interest - Gen­eral - [See second Labour Law - Topic 7121 ].

Quebec Procedure - Topic 261

Action in nullity - General - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the procedural rules governing direct actions in nullity under art. 33 of the Code of Civil Pro­cedure - See paragraphs 27 to 36.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 5821

Extraordinary remedies - Evocation - Practice - General - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the procedural rules governing applications for judicial review under art. 846 of the Code of Civil Pro­cedure (Que.) - See paragraphs 27 to 36.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 9210

Res judicata - Identity of object of two proceedings - A unionized employee invoked art. 846 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Que.) and applied for judicial review of an unfavourable grievance arbi­tration decision - The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the application, holding that the employee did not have the requi­site interest to bring the proceeding as he was not a party within the meaning of art. 846 - The employee then brought a direct action in nullity of the arbitrator's decision under art. 33 of the Code of Civil Pro­cedure - The employer invoked res judicata - The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the employee's action, holding that the employee had to have the same interest to bring the proceeding as that required under art. 846 - The Supreme Court of Canada, while affirming the decision at first instance, held that res judicata did not apply because the first Superior Court decision did not deal with the actual sub­stance of the case - See paragraph 20.

Cases Noticed:

Lessard c. Gare d'autobus de Sherbrooke ltée, J.E. 94-1854, refd to. [para. 8].

Vachon and Richard v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 55; 25 N.R. 399, refd to. [para. 12].

Rocois Construction Inc. v. Dominion Ready Mix Inc. et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 440; 112 N.R. 241; 31 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 20].

Dorion v. Roberge et autres, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 374; 124 N.R. 1; 39 Q.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 20].

Roberge v. Bolduc - see Dorion v. Roberge et autres.

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson et al., [1995] 4 S.C.R. 725; 191 N.R. 260; 68 B.C.A.C. 161; 112 W.A.C. 161; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 225, refd to. [para. 27].

Crevier v. Quebec (Attorney General) and Aubry, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 220; 38 N.R. 541, refd to. [para. 27].

Alliance des professeurs catholiques de Montréal v. Labour Relations Board (Que.), [1953] 2 S.C.R. 140, refd to. [para. 27].

Farrah v. Quebec (Attorney General) and Transport Tribunal, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 638; 21 N.R. 595, refd to. [para. 27].

Chicoutimi (Seminary) v. Quebec (Procureur général), [1973] S.C.R. 681, refd to. [para. 27].

Immeubles Port Louis Ltée v. Lafontaine (Village), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 326; 121 N.R. 323; 38 Q.A.C. 253; 78 D.L.R.(4th) 175, refd to. [para. 28].

Nolin (François) Limitee v. Commission des relations de travail du Quebec, [1968] S.C.R. 168, refd to. [para. 33].

Comité d'appel du Bureau provincial de medécine v. Chèvrefils, [1974] C.A. 123, refd to. [para. 34].

Fraternité des Policiers de Montréal Inc. v. Montréal (City) and Beaulieu, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 740; 32 N.R. 383, refd to. [para. 34].

Fortier v. Thermolec Ltée, [1985] R.D.J. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Jeunes canadiens pour une civilisation chrétienne v. Fondation du théâtre de Nouveau-Monde, [1979] C.A. 491 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Gagnon v. Canadian Merchant Services Guild and Laurentian Pilotage Authority, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 509; 53 N.R. 100; 9 D.L.R.(4th) 641, consd. [para. 42].

Rayonier Canada (B.C.) Ltd. and International Woodworkers of America, Local 1-217, Re, [1975] 2 Can. L.R.B.R. 196, consd. [para. 42].

Hémond, Grenier and Ouellet v. Syndicat des travailleurs(euses) de l'abbatoire de Princeville, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 962; 103 N.R. 193; 27 Q.A.C. 185, refd to. [para. 43].

McGavin Toastmaster Ltd. v. Ainscough, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 718; 4 N.R. 618, consd. [para. 43].

Becotte v. Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, local 301, [1979] T.T. 231, refd to. [para. 48].

Haley and Canadian Airlines Employees' Association, Re (1981), 41 di 311, refd to. [para. 53].

Centre hospitalier Régina Ltée v. Prud'homme (Juge) Tribunal du Travail, Montigny et autres, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1330; 111 N.R. 91; 31 Q.A.C. 269, refd to. [para. 53].

Gendron v. Baie-James (Municipalité), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 401; 66 N.R. 30, refd to. [para. 56].

Ajax (Town) v. National Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Worker's Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Local 222 et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 538; 253 N.R. 223; 133 O.A.C. 43, refd to. [para. 61].

Canadian Safeway Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 454 and Hardy, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1079; 226 N.R. 319; 168 Sask.R. 104; 173 W.A.C. 104, refd to. [para. 61].

Paccar of Canada Ltd. v. Canadian Association of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers, Local 14, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 983; 102 N.R. 1; 62 D.L.R.(4th) 437, refd to. [para. 61].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321; 125 D.L.R.(4th) 583, refd to. [para. 62].

Domtar Inc. v. Commission d'appel en matière de lésions professionnelles et autres, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 756; 154 N.R. 104; 55 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 65].

Hoogendoorn v. Greening Metal Products & Screening Equipment Co., [1968] S.C.R. 30; 65 D.L.R.(2d) 641, refd to. [para. 69].

Statutes Noticed:

Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-25, art. 33, art. 55, art. 165, art. 846 [para. 17].

Labour Code, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-27, sect. 47.2, sect. 47.3, sect. 47.4, sect. 47.5 [para. 17]; sect. 101 [para. 62].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Adams, George W., Canadian Labour Law (2nd Ed. 2000) (Loose leaf), pp. 13-15 to 13-18 [para. 48]; 13-18 to 13-20.1 [para. 49]; 13-20.1 to 13-20.6 [para. 50]; 13-37 [para. 51].

Blouin, Rodrigue, et Morin, Fernand, Droit de l'arbitrage de grief, 5e éd., 2000, pp. 178 to 181 [para. 45].

Brown, Raymond E., The "Arbitrary", "Discriminatory" and "Bad Faith" Tests Under the Duty of Fair Representation in Ontario (1982), 60 Can. Bar Rev. 412, pp. 453 to 454 [para. 48].

Ferland, Denis, et Emery, Benoît, Précis de procédure civile du Québec, 3e éd., 1997, vol. 1, pp. 89 et seq. [para. 37]; 206 to 209 [para. 20].

Gagnon, Robert P., Le droit du travail du Québec: pratiques et théories, 4e éd., 1999, pp. 308 [para. 48]; 310 to 313 [para. 51]; 362 [para. 41].

Morin, Fernand, et Brière, Jean-Yves, Le droit de l'emploi au Québec, 1998, pp. 867 to 870 [para. 41].

Royer, Jean-Claude, La preuve civile, 2e éd., 1995, pp. 463 to 464 [para. 20].

Veilleux, Diane, Le devoir de représenta­tion syndicale, Cadre d'analyse des obli­gations sous-jacentes (1993), 48 Relat. ind. 661, pp. 681 to 682 [para. 49]; 683 to 687 [para. 51].

Counsel:

Paule Lafontaine and Paul Faribault, for the appellant.

Jean Beauregard, for the respondent.

Laurent Roy and Christiane Morrisseau, for the mis en cause, Syndicat des mé­tallurgistes unis d'Amérique, section locale 6833 (F.T.Q.) (United Steelworkers of America, Local 6833 (F.T.Q.)).

Solicitors of Record:

Eidinger & Associés, Montréal, Quebec, for the appellant.

Lavery, de Billy, Montréal, Quebec, for the respondent.

Trudel, Nadeau, Lesage, Larivière & Associés, Montréal, Quebec, for the mis en cause Syndicat des métallurgistes unis d'Amérique, section locale 6833 (F.T.Q.) (United Steelworkers of America, Local 6833 (F.T.Q.)).

This appeal was heard on October 11, 2000, by L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on June 28, 2001, by LeBel, J.