Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1374 v. Saskatchewan Transportation Co., 2001 SKQB 374

• Judge: Matheson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: July 27, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2001 SKQB 374;(2001), 210 Sask.R. 46 (QB)

ATU v. Sask. Transportation Co. (2001), 210 Sask.R. 46 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] Sask.R. TBEd. AU.026

Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1374 (applicant) v. Saskatchewan Transportation Company (respondent)

(2001 Q.B.G. No. 466; 2001 SKQB 374)

Indexed As: Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1374 v. Saskatchewan Transportation Co.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Matheson, J.

July 27, 2001.

Summary:

The Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1374, applied for an order to quash a decision of the Public Employees Pension Board which interpreted the basis upon which pension benefits of motor coach operators were calculated.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 3202

Judicial review - General - Scope or standard of review - A union applied for an order to quash a decision of the Public Employees Pension Board which interpreted the basis upon which pension benefits of motor coach operators were calculated - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that utilizing the functional and pragmatic approach mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada, it must be concluded that a significant degree of deference was to be accorded to the decision of the Board which the union sought to quash, "towards a standard of review at the patently unreasonableness end of the spectrum" - See paragraphs 33 to 48.

Administrative Law - Topic 3306

Judicial review - General - Bars - Delay - A union applied for an order to quash a decision of the Public Employees Pension Board which interpreted the basis upon which pension benefits of motor coach operators were calculated - The employer argued that the application should be rejected on the ground of undue delay where it was filed 32 months after the Board's decision - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that "[e]xcept for a salutary rebuke to the union for undue delay in applying for judicial review, dismissal of the application on procedural grounds would likely only have the result of requiring the parties to incur additional expense by taking the necessary steps required to have the issue determined on its merits" - The court considered that the decision sought to be reviewed affected all motor coach operators, as well as future motor coach operators, and that it extended over the life of the pension plan - See paragraphs 20 to 32.

Administrative Law - Topic 5186

Judicial review - Certiorari - Discretionary bars to issue of certiorari - Delay - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3306 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 9102

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Standard of review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3202 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 1947

Remuneration - Pension or retirement benefits - Calculation of - The Public Service Superannuation Act established a defined benefit pension plan - The benefit was based on the averaging of salary for the best five years of the prospective pensioner's career - The Public Employees Pension Board decided that pensionable "salary" for motor coach operators, who were paid on a mileage basis, would be based, with respect to statutory holidays, on the regular wage rate whether or not the bus drivers worked on a statutory holiday - The effect of the decision was that any "premium" pay credited to a motor coach operator arising from working on a statutory holiday was not included in pensionable salary - The union applied to quash the Board's decision - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The Board's decision was not unreasonable or patently unreasonable - See paragraphs 49 to 68.

Cases Noticed:

Inter-City Freightlines Ltd. and Manitoba Highway Traffic and Motor Transport Board of v. Swan River - The Pas Transfer Ltd. et al., [1972] 2 W.W.R. 317 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Henry v. Workers' Compensation Board (Sask.) (1999), 177 Sask.R. 35; 199 W.A.C. 35; 172 D.L.R.(4th) 73 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Breton v. Battlefords Union Hospital Board (1992), 6 Admin. L.R.(2d) 11 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 23].

Basu v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Sask.) (1988), 70 Sask.R. 254 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 23].

Sylvestre v. Commission de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration du Canada (1989), 28 F.T.R. 81 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 23].

Crommer v. Workers' Compensation Board (Sask.) et al. (1992), 98 Sask.R. 213 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 29].

Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) v. Mattel Canada Inc. (2001), 270 N.R. 153 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 579 v. Bradco Construction Ltd., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 316; 153 N.R. 81; 106 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 140; 334 A.P.R. 140, refd to. [para. 35].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554; 149 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 36].

GenCorp Canada Inc. v. Superintendent of Pensions (Ont.) et al. (1995), 87 O.A.C. 241; 26 O.R.(3d) 696 (Div. Ct.), affd. (1998), 114 O.A.C. 170; 39 O.R.(3d) 38 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Central Guarantee Trust Co. (Liquidator of) v. Spectrum Pension Plan - see Spectrum Pension Plan (Administrator) v. Superintendent of Pensions (N.S.) et al.

Spectrum Pension Plan (Administrator) v. Superintendent of Pensions (N.S.) et al. (1997), 161 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 477 A.P.R. 1; 149 D.L.R.(4th) 200 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

Hawker Siddeley Canada Inc. v. Superintendent of Pensions (N.S.) et al. (1994), 129 N.S.R.(2d) 194; 362 A.P.R. 194; 113 D.L.R.(4th) 424 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 46].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 941; 150 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 48].

Board of Education of Toronto v. Referee under the Employment Standards Act (Ont.) (1988), 28 O.A.C. 140; 88 C.L.L.C. 14,010 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 49].

Counsel:

W.J. Johnson, for Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1374;

E.V. Libby, for Saskatchewan Transportation Company;

B.J. Hornsberger, Q.C., for Public Employees Pension Board.

This application was heard before Matheson, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following decision on July 27, 2001.