Alberta v. Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, (1984) 53 A.R. 277 (CA)

• Judge: Lieberman, Harradence and Belzil, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: May 17, 1984
• Citations: (1984), 53 A.R. 277 (CA)

Alta. v. AUPE (1984), 53 A.R. 277 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Alberta, Province of v. Alberta Union Provincial Employees

(No. 17541)

Indexed As: Alberta v. Alberta Union of Provincial Employees

Alberta Court of Appeal

Lieberman, Harradence and Belzil, JJ.A.

May 17, 1984.

Summary:

A union applied for a declaration that certain provisions of the Public Service Employees Relations Act and the Labour Relations Act were inconsistent with the freedom of association guaranteed under s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The province applied for the trial judge to stay or adjourn the application sine die to allow a reference to the Court of Appeal under s. 27 of the Judicature Act.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported in (1984), 52 A.R. 19, refused to grant the stay, because the union had a right to have its application heard without delay. The province appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and granted a stay, because, inter alia, the reference would decide the issues raised on the application, there would be no prejudice to the union's interest, and both the union and the province indicated they would appeal if they obtained a ruling adverse to their interest on the application.

Constitutional Law - Topic 1008

Interpretation of constitution - Constitutional references - Effect of - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that under s. 27(7) of the Judicature Act the opinion of the court on a reference was deemed to be a judgment of the court, with the same binding effect -See paragraph 19.

Practice - Topic 5277

Trials - General - Stay of proceedings - When available - A union applied for a declaration that certain statutory provisions violated its rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Before the application was heard, the province applied to have the application stayed or adjourned sine die to allow a reference to the Court of Appeal under s. 27 of the Judicature Act - The Alberta Court of Appeal granted the stay, because the reference would decide the issues raised in the application, it would prevent duplicitous litigation, both parties indicated they would appeal an adverse ruling on the application and the union would not be prejudiced where the union had the right to make submissions on the reference - See paragraphs 3 to 22.

Cases Noticed:

Perry v. Croydon Borough Council, [1983] 3 All E.R. 670 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Amos v. Chadwick (1878), 9 Ch. D. 459 (C.A.), appld. [para. 9].

Bennett v. Lord Bury (1880), 5 C.P.D. 339, refd to. [para. 10].

Multiple Utilities Co., Ltd. v. Souch, [1979] W.N. 230 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

St. Pierre v. South American Stores Ltd., [1935] All E.R. 408 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Empire-Universal Films Limited et al. v. Rank et al., [1947] O.R. 775, refd to. [para. 14].

Bank of America National Trust & Banking Association v. Poyet, [1955] 1 D.L.R. 680, refd to. [para. 14].

Reference re Validity of the Wartime Leasehold Regulations, [1950] 2 D.L.R. 1, not appld. [para. 19].

R. v. Sellars (1980), 32 N.R. 70; 110 D.L.R.(3d) 630, refd to. [para. 19].

Willow Wren Canal v. British Transport, [1956] 1 All E.R. 567, refd to. [para. 22].

Statutes Noticed:

Judicature Act, R.S.A. 1980, C. J-1, sect. 27 [para. 4].

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 410(c) [para. 20].

Counsel:

R.A. McLennan, Q.C., for the appellant;

T.J. Christian, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Lieberman, Harradence and Belzil, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On May 17, 1984, Belzil, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal: