Baird v. Lawson, (1996) 146 Sask.R. 273 (QB)

• Judge: Baynton, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: July 22, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1996), 146 Sask.R. 273 (QB)

Baird v. Lawson (1996), 146 Sask.R. 273 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Brian Baird and Sharron Baird (appellants) v. Gerald Lawson (respondent)

(1996 Q.B. No. 107)

Indexed As: Baird v. Lawson

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Swift Current

Baynton, J.

July 22, 1996.

Summary:

The Director of Labour Standards made a wage assessment of $6,324.93 against Lawson in favour of the Bairds. On appeal, the adjudicator revoked the entire assessment on the basis that the Bairds were not Lawson's employees. The Bairds appealed.

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

Estoppel - Topic 379

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Cause of action - Lawson brought two small claims actions against the Bairds, one for the use and value of property alleged to have been taken by them, the second for the value of goods sold and delivered to them - The claims were dis­missed - An adjudicator revoked a wage assessment made by the Director of Labour Standards against Lawson, in favour of the Bairds, on the basis that they were not Lawson's employees - The Bairds appealed the adjudicator's decision, alleging that the small claims judge had already determined that they were employees - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that action estoppel did not apply where the small claims actions only incidentally raised the employment issue - See paragraph 15.

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings - Lawson brought two small claims actions against the Bairds, one for the use and value of property alleged to have been taken by them, the second for the value of goods sold and delivered to them - The claims were dismissed - An adjudicator revoked a wage assessment made by the Director of Labour Standards against Lawson, in favour of the Bairds, on the basis that they were not Lawson's employees - The Bairds appealed, alleging that the small claims judge had already determined that they were employees - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that issue estoppel did not apply - The judge did not determine that the Bairds were employees nor was that deter­mination fundamental to his judgments dismissing the claims - See paragraphs 16, 17.

Master and Servant - Topic 8344

Employment and labour standards - Juris­diction and powers of director, tribunal, referees or officers - Judicial review - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that an adjudicator under the Labour Standards Act, hearing an appeal from a Director's decision, could determine the fundamental issue of whether the parties' relationship was one of employer-employee - See paragraphs 18 to 20.

Master and Servant - Topic 8344

Employment and labour standards - Juris­diction and powers of director, tribunal, referees or officers - Judicial review - The appellants alleged that an adjudicator under the Labour Standards Act erred in failing to consider statutory definitions, particu­larly the terms "employer" and "employee" - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that "... these defini­tions are very general and cannot of them­selves provide the ultimate answer to every con­ceivable set of circumstances. ... The nature of a business arrangement or rela­tionship between the parties must be determined as a matter of fact from other established facts in accordance with legal guidelines laid down by the common law." - See paragraphs 21, 22.

Master and Servant - Topic 8344

Employment and labour standards - Juris­diction and powers of director, tribunal, referees or officers - Judicial review - [See Master and Servant - Topic 8357 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 8345

Employment and labour standards - Juris­diction and powers of director, tribunal, referees or officers - Questions of fact - [See Master and Servant - Topic 8357 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 8345

Employment and labour standards - Juris­diction and powers of director, tribunal, referees or officers - Questions of fact - Appellants alleged that an adjudicator under the Labour Standards Act erred in law in concluding that no employment relationship existed between the parties - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the issue was a question of fact and noted that the right of appeal was limited by s. 62.3(1) to a question of law or jurisdiction - See paragraphs 23 to 25.

Master and Servant - Topic 8357

Employment and labour standards - Juris­diction and powers of director, tribunal, referees or officers - Appeals - The Director of Labour Standards made a wage assessment of $6,324.93 against Lawson in favour of the Bairds - On appeal under s. 62.3(4) of the Labour Standards Act, the adjudicator revoked the entire assessment on the basis that the Bairds were not Law­son's employees - The Bairds appealed - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench noted that the record of an appeal pro­scribed by s. 62.3(4) does not include the exhibits or a transcript of the evidence adduced at the initial appeal hearing and that the only "evidence" before the appeal court is that which is set out in the adjudi­cator's written reasons - Thus the facts were those described by the adjudicator in his written reasons - See paragraph 3.

Practice - Topic 7021

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitle­ment to party and party costs - Successful party - Exceptions - Conduct - The Di­rector of Labour Standards made a wage assessment of $6,324.93 against Lawson in favour of the Bairds - On appeal under s. 62.3(4) of the Labour Standards Act, the adjudicator revoked the entire assessment on the basis that the Bairds were not Lawson's employees - The Bairds appealed - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - The court declined to award costs against the Bairds where, inter alia, Lawson failed to file a brief in response to the Bairds' detailed brief - See paragraph 29.

Cases Noticed:

Board of Education (Sask.) v. Teachers of Saskatchewan and Pelton (1995), 131 Sask.R. 67; 95 W.A.C. 67 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Dairy Producers Co-operative Ltd. v. Teamsters, Dairy and Produce Workers, Local 834 et al. (1993), 113 Sask.R. 65; 52 W.A.C. 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Tarr and Tarr v. Kipling Motor Inn, Prairie Oasis Ltd. (1996), 140 Sask.R. 14 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 11, 17].

Jones v. Kindrachuk and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (1991), 96 Sask.R. 73 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

Sikorski et al. v. Tri-Hospital Patient Transport and Courier Ltd. (1995), 136 Sask.R. 61 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 19 et seq.].

Saskatoon Horses and the Handicapped Inc. v. Thibeault (1994), 126 Sask.R. 250 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Mac's Milk Ltd., [1973] 6 W.W.R. 598 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Montreal (City) v. Montreal Locomotive Works Ltd. et al., [1947] 1 D.L.R. 161 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 21, 22].

Mayer v. Lavigne (J. Conrad) Ltd. (1979), 105 D.L.R.(3d) 734 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Co-operators Insurance Association v. Kearney (1964), 48 D.L.R.(2d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

Sample Estate, Re (1955), 15 W.W.R.(N.S.) 193 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Ed. 1955), vol. 25, para. 871 [para. 23].

Counsel:

R. Neil Smith, for the appellants;

T.J. Keene, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by Baynton, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Swift Current, who delivered the following decision on July 22, 1996.