Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v. Provincial Health Authorities (Alta.) et al., (2004) 368 A.R. 225 (QB)

• Judge: Macklin, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: July 30, 2004
• Citations: (2004), 368 A.R. 225 (QB);2004 ABQB 591

AUPE v. Provincial Health Authorities (2004), 368 A.R. 225 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. AU.071

In The Matter Of a Decision of the Labour Relations Board dated April 27th, 2001 and In The Matter Of an Application for Judicial Review

(0103 12015)

And In The Matter Of a Decision of the Labour Relations Board dated September 3, 2002 and In The Matter Of an Application for Judicial Review

(0103 17343)

And In The Matter Of a Decision of the Labour Relations Board dated October 21st, 2002 and In The Matter Of an Application for Judicial Review

(0203 20842)

And In The Matter Of a Decision of the Labour Relations Board dated November 19th, 2003 and In The Matter Of an Application for Judicial Review

(0303 23234)

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (applicant) v. Provincial Health Authorities of Alberta, Continuing Care Employers' Bargaining Association, Alberta Mental Health Board and Capital Health Authority (respondents) and The Alberta Labour Relations Board, the Alberta Federation of Labour, Health Sciences Association of Alberta, United Nurses of Alberta and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta (respondents/not parties to this Action)

(0103 12015; 0103 17343; 0203 20842; 0303 23234; 2004 ABQB 591)

Indexed As: Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v. Provincial Health Authorities (Alta.) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Macklin, J.

July 30, 2004.

Summary:

Support staff at various Alberta hospitals began an unlawful strike on May 24, 2000. The employees were all members of bargaining units represented by the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE). In response to applications by the employers, the Alberta Labour Relations Board, in a series of four decisions, directed under s. 114 of the Labour Relations Code that the employers suspend the deduction and remittance of union dues payable by the employees to AUPE. AUPE applied for judicial review.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application for judicial review in part. The court quashed the Board's first decision. The court dismissed the application with respect to the three other decisions.

Administrative Law - Topic 9060

Boards and tribunals - Jurisdiction of particular boards and tribunals - Provincial labour relations boards - [See Labour Law - Topic 540 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 2204

Freedom of association - Denial of right of - What constitutes - Support staff at various Alberta hospitals began an unlawful strike on May 24, 2000 - The employees were all members of bargaining units represented by the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) - In response to applications by the employers, the Alberta Labour Relations Board directed under s. 114 of the Labour Relations Code that the employers suspend the deduction and remittance of union dues payable by the employees to AUPE - AUPE applied for judicial review - AUPE argued that s. 114 breached their s. 2(d) Charter right to freedom of association - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that s. 114 infringed s. 2(d) of the Charter because it was aimed directly at the associational nature of the Rand formula (mandatory dues check off) in a way that a purely financial penalty did not - Section 114 discouraged the collective pursuit of common goals, by permitting free-riders, by creating an environment that undermined the union's relationship with its members and the bargaining unit as a whole and by creating a situation that could be exploited by an employer to undermine a union - However, s. 114 was saved by s. 1 of the Charter - See paragraphs 98 to 123.

Civil Rights - Topic 3191

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Administrative and noncriminal proceedings - Delay - Support staff at various Alberta hospitals began an unlawful strike on May 24, 2000 - The employees were all members of bargaining units represented by the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) - In response to applications by the employers, hearings before the Alberta Labour Relations Board were held in June, August, September and December 2000 - In a series of four decisions dated April 27, 2001, September 3, 2002, October 21, 2002 and November 19, 2003, the Board directed under s. 114 of the Labour Relations Code that the employers suspend the deduction and remittance of union dues payable by the employees to AUPE - AUPE applied for judicial review - AUPE argued that s. 114 breached their s. 11(b) Charter rights to a speedy trial - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - The right to a trial within a reasonable time did not include the right of AUPE to have a decision from an administrative tribunal rendered within a specified period of time - There was no concern as to pretrial custody or anxiety awaiting trial, nor was there a fear that evidence would be lost - In any event, the Board's delay in rendering its decision was not inordinate or unreasonable - See paragraphs 164 to 173.

Civil Rights - Topic 3764

Punishment - General - Double punishment prohibited - Support staff at various Alberta hospitals began an unlawful strike on May 24, 2000 - The employees were all members of bargaining units represented by the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) - On May 22, 2000, the Alberta Labour Relations Board had issued a directive to the AUPE to desist from commencing an unlawful strike - On May 24, 2000, a further directive was issued to AUPE to return to work and cease its unlawful strike - Both directives were filed with the Court of Queen's Bench and AUPE was found to be in civil contempt and fined $200,000 - Subsequently, in response to applications by the employers, the Board directed under s. 114 of the Labour Relations Code that the employers suspend the deduction and remittance of union dues payable by the employees to AUPE - AUPE applied for judicial review - AUPE argued that s. 114 breached their s. 11(h) Charter rights to not be tried or punished for the same offence again - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - While both the contempt and the s. 114 directive were in response to the same act, the unlawful strike, other elements made them distinct - See paragraphs 154 to 163.

Civil Rights - Topic 8305.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Section 11 - Support staff at various Alberta hospitals began an unlawful strike on May 24, 2000 - The employees were all members of bargaining units represented by the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) - In response to applications by the employers, the Alberta Labour Relations Board directed under s. 114 of the Labour Relations Code that the employers suspend the deduction and remittance of union dues payable by the employees to AUPE - AUPE applied for judicial review - AUPE argued that s. 114 breached their ss. 11(b) and 11(h) Charter rights - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that s. 11 did not apply - A directive under s. 114 was not initiated by the state in its prosecutorial role and it did not involve the imposition of a fine or imprisonment - See paragraphs 144 to 153.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - Support staff at various Alberta hospitals began an unlawful strike on May 24, 2000 - The employees were all members of bargaining units represented by the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) - In response to applications by the employers, the Alberta Labour Relations Board directed under s. 114 of the Labour Relations Code that the employers suspend the deduction and remittance of union dues payable by the employees to AUPE - AUPE applied for judicial review - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that s. 114 breached AUPE's s. 2(d) Charter right to freedom of association - However, the court held that s. 114 was protected by s. 1 of the Charter as it imposed a reasonable limit that was demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society - Directing an employer to cease deducting and remitting dues was rationally connected to the objective of ending a strike - A directive under s. 114 was temporary and met the minimal impairment test in the circumstances of this case - Finally, the beneficial impact of deterring and bringing about a quick end to a strike in the important health care sector outweighed its deleterious effects - See paragraphs 124 to 141.

Civil Rights - Topic 8581.2

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Judicial review (incl. standard of review) - [See second Labour Law - Topic 576 ].

Labour Law - Topic 6

General principles and definitions - General - Legislation - [See Statutes - Topic 8501 ].

Labour Law - Topic 407

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Boards - General - Constitution - Support staff at various Alberta hospitals began an unlawful strike on May 24, 2000 - The employees were all members of bargaining units represented by the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) - The Alberta Labour Relations Board, in a series of four decisions (AUPE 1, AUPE 2, AUPE 3 and AUPE 4), directed under s. 114 of the Labour Relations Code that the employers suspend the deduction and remittance of union dues payable by the employees to AUPE - AUPE applied for judicial review - AUPE argued that the Board was improperly constituted where the appointment of a member of the panel expired before the hearings and rulings in AUPE 3 and AUPE 4 - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - The participation of the member did not affect the quorum such as to render the decisions in AUPE 3 and AUPE 4 as nullities (Code, s. 9(9)) - See paragraphs 187 to 191.

Labour Law - Topic 540

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Powers of board - Remedies - Support staff at various Alberta hospitals began an unlawful strike on May 24, 2000 - The employees were all members of bargaining units represented by the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) - The Alberta Relations Board, in a series of four decisions (AUPE 1, AUPE 2, AUPE 3 and AUPE 4), directed under s. 114 of the Labour Relations Code that the employers suspend the deduction and remittance of union dues payable by the employees to AUPE - AUPE applied for judicial review - AUPE argued that the Board erred in its interpretation of s. 114 by holding that the Board could only issue a directive in response to an application by an employer (the AUPE 1 decision) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application and quashed the AUPE 1 decision - Section 114 did not expressly state who had to initiate the process, however the plain wording of s. 114 suggested that it was the Board, on its own initiative, that had to direct the employer - See paragraphs 67 to 80.

Labour Law - Topic 576

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Judicial review - General - Standard of review - Support staff at various Alberta hospitals began an unlawful strike on May 24, 2000 - The employees were all members of bargaining units represented by the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) - In response to applications by the employers, the Alberta Labour Relations Board directed under s. 114 of the Labour Relations Code that the employers suspend the deduction and remittance of union dues payable by the employees to AUPE - The Board made interpretative determinations in regards to s. 114 - AUPE applied for judicial review - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench applied the pragmatic and functional approach and held that the appropriate standard of review of the Board's interpretation of s. 114 was reasonableness simpliciter - See paragraphs 36 to 62.

Labour Law - Topic 576

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Judicial review - General - Standard of review - Support staff at various Alberta hospitals began an unlawful strike on May 24, 2000 - The employees were all members of bargaining units represented by the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) - In response to applications by the employers, the Alberta Labour Relations Board directed under s. 114 of the Labour Relations Code that the employers suspend the deduction and remittance of union dues payable by the employees to AUPE - AUPE applied for judicial review - AUPE argued that s. 114 breached their ss. 2(d), 11(b) and 11(h) Charter rights - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the standard of review for decisions of the Board on the interpretation and application of the Charter was the least deferential standard of correctness - See paragraphs 96 to 97.

Labour Law - Topic 576

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Judicial review - General - Standard of review - Support staff at various Alberta hospitals began an unlawful strike on May 24, 2000 - The employees were all members of bargaining units represented by the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) - In response to applications by the employers, the Alberta Labour Relations Board directed under s. 114 of the Labour Relations Code that the employers suspend the deduction and remittance of union dues payable by the employees to AUPE - AUPE applied for judicial review - AUPE argued that the procedure before the Board breached its right to natural justice and to a fair hearing - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that there was no need to determine the standard of review or the degree of deference to be accorded to the Board when determining whether it acted fairly and in accordance with the rules of natural justice - See paragraphs 176 to 180.

Labour Law - Topic 646

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Natural justice - Denial of - Bias - What constitutes - Support staff at various Alberta hospitals began an unlawful strike on May 24, 2000 - The employees were all members of bargaining units represented by the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) - In response to applications by the employers, the Alberta Labour Relations Board directed under s. 114 of the Labour Relations Code that the employers suspend the deduction and remittance of union dues payable by the employees to AUPE - AUPE applied for judicial review - AUPE argued that the rules of natural justice were breached where the Charter argument of delay was assigned to the same panel alleged to be guilty of delay - AUPE alleged that it gave an appearance of bias - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - As an administrative tribunal setting its own procedure, there was nothing improper about having the panel against whom delay was alleged hear that argument - Further, a well informed bystander would not perceive bias - See paragraphs 181 to 186.

Labour Law - Topic 656

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Natural justice - Denial of - Evidence - Denial of right to adduce - Support staff at various Alberta hospitals began an unlawful strike on May 24, 2000 - The employees were all members of bargaining units represented by the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) - In response to applications by the employers, the Alberta Labour Relations Board directed under s. 114 of the Labour Relations Code that the employers suspend the deduction and remittance of union dues payable by the employees to AUPE - AUPE applied for judicial review - AUPE argued that the procedure before the Board breached its right to natural justice and to a fair hearing where it was denied the right to adduce evidence on the composition of the bargaining units in relation to a delay Charter argument - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - The Board had considered the evidence AUPE sought to introduce but ultimately determined that, even if tendered, the evidenced would be irrelevant to the determination of the delay issue - Its refusal to hear the evidence did not prejudice AUPE - See paragraphs 192 to 197.

Statutes - Topic 8501

Remedial statutes - General - Support staff at various Alberta hospitals began an unlawful strike on May 24, 2000 - The employees were all members of bargaining units represented by the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) - In response to applications by the employers, the Alberta Labour Relations Board directed under s. 114 of the Labour Relations Code that the employers suspend the deduction and remittance of union dues payable by the employees to AUPE - The Board made interpretative determinations in regards to s. 114 and held that s. 114 had both a punitive and remedial effect but that it could have a purely punitive effect - AUPE applied for judicial review - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that s. 114 was intended as a remedial provision - The Board's authority to issue a directive once an unlawful strike commenced was a significant deterrent to the union and employees - A directive given during the course of an illegal strike had the immediate remedial impact by encouraging an end to the strike and a return to work - See paragraphs 81 to 87.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322; 15 C.C.C.(2d) 524; 26 C.R.N.S. 1; 44 D.L.R.(3d) 351, refd to. [para. 15].

Carewest v. Canadian Health Care Guild et al., [1999] Alta. L.R.B.R. 657 (Lab. Rel. Bd.), refd to. [para. 19].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201; 160 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 36].

Voice Construction Ltd. v. Construction and General Workers' Union, Local 92, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 609; 318 N.R. 332; 346 A.R. 201; 320 W.A.C. 201; 2004 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 38].

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, Branch 63 v. Alberta Public Service Employee Relations Board and Board of Governors of Olds College, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 923; 42 N.R. 559; 37 A.R. 281; 21 Alta.L.R.(2d) 104; 136 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 38].

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; 102 D.L.R.(4th) 402, refd to. [para. 38].

Blanchard v. Control Data Canada Ltd., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 476; 55 N.R. 194; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 289; 84 C.C.L.C. 14,070; 14 Admin. L.R. 133, refd to. [para. 38].

Mistahia Health Region v. United Nurses of Alberta, Local 64 (2003), 339 A.R. 360; 312 W.A.C. 360; 2003 ABCA 361, refd to. [para. 38].

Foothills Provincial General Hospital v. United Nurses of Alberta, Local 115 (1998), 228 A.R. 122; 188 W.A.C. 122; 1998 ABCA 358, refd to. [para. 38].

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v. Alberta, [1983] A.J. No. 41 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Finning (Canada) Inc. v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local Lodge 99, [2004] A.R. Uned. 181; 2004 ABQB 155, refd to. [para. 38].

United Steelworkers of America, Local 5220 v. Alta Steel Ltd. (2004), 356 A.R. 125; 2004 ABQB 262, refd to. [para. 38].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Hawco et al. (1996), 191 A.R. 207 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 38].

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees et al. v. Lethbridge Community College, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 727; 319 N.R. 201; 348 A.R. 1; 321 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 28, refd to. [para. 39].

International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Ship and Dock Foremen, Local 514 v. Prince Rupert Grain Ltd., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 432; 198 N.R. 99, refd to. [para. 48].

Alberta v. Labour Relations Board (Alta.) et al. (2002), 293 A.R. 251; 257 W.A.C. 251 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 157; 177 N.R. 1; 121 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 27 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 49].

Royal Oak Mines Inc. v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 369; 193 N.R. 81; 96 C.L.L.C. 141,983, refd to. [para. 50].

United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1518 v. KMart Canada Ltd., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 1083; 245 N.R. 1; 128 B.C.A.C. 1; 208 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 51].

United Taxi Drivers' Fellowship of Southern Alberta et al. v. Calgary (City), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 485; 318 N.R. 170; 346 A.R. 4; 320 W.A.C. 4; 236 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 2004 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Gladue (J.T.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688; 238 N.R. 1; 121 B.C.A.C. 161; 198 W.A.C. 161; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 23 C.R.(5th) 197; 171 D.L.R.(4th) 385; [1999] 2 C.N.L.R. 252, refd to. [para. 69].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 71].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207, refd to. [para. 88].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20; 144 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 89].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 941; 150 N.R. 161; 101 D.L.R.(4th) 673; 93 C.L.L.C. 14,022, refd to. [para. 93].

Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5; 122 N.R. 361; 47 O.A.C. 271; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 121, refd to. [para. 96].

Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; 74 N.R. 99; 78 A.R. 1; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 102].

Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.) - see Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration.

Dunmore et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 1016; 279 N.R. 201; 154 O.A.C. 201; 2001 SCC 94, refd to. [para. 103].

Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees' Union et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211; 126 N.R. 161; 48 O.A.C. 241; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 545; 4 C.R.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Advance Cutting and Coring Ltd. et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 209; 276 N.R. 1; 205 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 2001 SCC 70, refd to. [para. 105].

Ford Motor Co. of Canada v. U.A.W.-I.C.O. (1946), 46 C.L.L.C. 18,001 (Can. Wartime Lab. Rel. Bd.), refd to. [para. 109].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [para. 125].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 120 D.L.R.(4th) 12; 25 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 34 C.R.(4th) 269, refd to. [para. 137].

R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541; 81 N.R. 161; 61 Sask.R. 105; 24 O.A.C. 321; 45 D.L.R.(4th) 235; [1988] 1 W.W.R. 193; 60 C.R.(3d) 193; 28 Admin. L.R. 294; 32 C.R.R. 219; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 146].

Barry and Brosseau v. Alberta Securities Commission (1986), 67 A.R. 222; 25 D.L.R.(4th) 730 (C.A.), affd. [1989] 1 S.C.R. 301; 93 N.R. 1; 96 A.R. 241, refd to. [para. 148].

Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307; 260 N.R. 1; 141 B.C.A.C. 161; 231 W.A.C. 161; 190 D.L.R.(4th) 513; 23 Admin. L.R.(3d) 175, refd to. [para. 149].

R. v. Sillip (E.F.) (1995), 172 A.R. 174 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 162].

R. v. CIP Inc., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 843; 135 N.R. 90; 52 O.A.C. 366; 12 C.R.(4th) 237; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [para. 171].

Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 249; 281 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 636 A.P.R. 201; 209 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 2002 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 176].

Moreau-Bérubé v. New Brunswick (Judicial Council) - see Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé.

Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539; 304 N.R. 76; 173 O.A.C. 38; 2003 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 177].

Re Retired Judges Case - see Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour).

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22; 174 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 180].

Newfoundland Telephone Co. v. Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (Nfld.), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 623; 134 N.R. 241; 95 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 301 A.P.R. 271; 4 Admin. L.R.(2d) 121; 89 D.L.R.(4th) 289, refd to. [para. 186].

Statutes Noticed:

Labour Relations Code, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-1, sect. 114 [para. 34].

Counsel:

G. Brent Gawne (G. Brent Gawne), for the applicant;

Craig Neuman (Neuman Thompson), for the respondent, Alberta Mental Health Board;

William J. Armstrong, Q.C. (Laird Armstrong), for the respondent, PHAA;

J. Robert W. Blair (Blair Chahley Seveny), for the respondent, HSAA;

Shawn McLeod (Labour Relations Board), for the respondent, Labour Relations Board;

Roderick Wiltshire (Alberta Justice), for the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen;

Ron Newman, Q.C. (Neuman Thompson), for the respondents, CCEBA and CHA.

This application was heard on May 12 and 13, 2004, before Macklin, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on July 30, 2004.