Beaulieu v. University of Alberta et al., (2014) 575 A.R. 24

• Judge: Berger, Costigan and O'Ferrall, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: April 22, 2014
• Citations: (2014), 575 A.R. 24;2014 ABCA 137

Beaulieu v. Alta. Univ. (2014), 575 A.R. 24; 612 W.A.C. 24 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] A.R. TBEd. ap.107

Dr. Norman C. Beaulieu (appellant/plaintiff) v. The Governors of the University of Alberta, Dr. David T. Lynch and Dr. Horacio J. Marquez (respondents/defendants)

(1303-0159-AC; 2014 ABCA 137)

Indexed As: Beaulieu v. University of Alberta et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Berger, Costigan and O'Ferrall, JJ.A.

April 22, 2014.

Summary:

A university professor bound by a collective agreement under the Post-secondary Learning Act brought a civil action against the university and others for harassment, denial of access to research funding, breach of confidentiality, defamation, intentional infliction of mental suffering and failing to stop disciplinary proceedings to accommodate his medical condition. The university applied to strike the statement of claim for want of jurisdiction, arguing that the dispute resolution procedures in the collective agreement precluded a civil action. The professor sought an interlocutory injunction to prohibit the university from proceeding with the collective agreement procedures against him pending medical clearance from his doctor.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported [2013] A.R. Uned. 409, struck the statement of claim for want of jurisdiction, dismissed the injunction application and awarded double costs against the professor. The professor's employment was then terminated. The professor appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The trial judge did not err in striking the claim for want of jurisdiction or in awarding double costs.

Labour Law - Topic 9076

Public service labour relations - Remedies - Civil action - When available - [See Labour Law - Topic 9655 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9655

Public service labour relations - Collective agreement - Civil action - Jurisdiction - A university professor bound by a collective agreement under the Post-secondary Learning Act brought a civil action against the university and others for harassment, denial of access to research funding, breach of confidentiality, defamation, intentional infliction of mental suffering and failing to stop disciplinary proceedings to accommodate his medical condition - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not err in striking the statement of claim for want of jurisdiction - The dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the collective agreement dispute resolution procedures - A civil action was precluded - The essential character of the dispute arose out of the interpretation, application or violation of the collective agreement - This was not one of those exceptional cases where it would be appropriate for a court to exercise its residual inherent jurisdiction to grant a remedy outside of the dispute resolution procedures available - The comprehensive dispute resolution procedures provided the remedies required to resolve the dispute - See paragraphs 36 to 56.

Practice - Topic 7110.1

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - Increase in scale of costs - Conduct of opposite party - A university professor commenced a civil action against the university - The statement of claim was struck for want of jurisdiction, as exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the dispute fell within the comprehensive dispute resolution procedures of the collective agreement - The trial judge awarded the university enhanced costs (double Column 4) for three reasons: (1) the action was complex; (2) the university had warned the professor early in the proceeding that exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the dispute fell under the collective agreement; and (3) the professor was guilty of misconduct by seeking to use the civil action to embarrass and harass two superiors at the university - The professor provided unsolicited copies of his statement of claim to faculty members and students - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not err in awarding enhanced costs - The professor's misconduct in attempting to embarrass and harass his employers was sufficient, by itself, to warrant enhanced costs - See paragraphs 57 to 58.

Cases Noticed:

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 21].

Young Estate et al. v. TransAlta Utilities Corp. et al. (1997), 209 A.R. 89; 160 W.A.C. 89; 1997 ABCA 349, refd to. [para. 27].

Wanke v. University of Calgary, [2011] A.R. Uned. 354; 2011 ABCA 235, refd to. [para. 27].

Kniss v. Elliott et al. (2014), 569 A.R. 321; 606 W.A.C. 321; 2014 ABCA 73, refd to. [para. 34].

Indutech Canada Ltd. v. Gibbs Pipe Distributors Ltd. et al. (2013), 544 A.R. 205; 567 W.A.C. 205; 2013 ABCA 111, refd to. [para. 35].

Bisaillon v. Concordia University, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 666; 348 N.R. 201; 2006 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 36].

Brunet v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 537; 13 N.R. 233, refd to. [para. 40].

Pratt v. University of Lethbridge et al. (2001), 281 A.R. 393; 248 W.A.C. 393 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Cherubini Metal Works Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) et al. (2007), 253 N.S.R.(2d) 144; 807 A.P.R. 144; 2007 NSCA 38, refd to. [para. 48].

Vaughan v. Canada, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 146; 331 N.R. 64; 2005 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 49].

Bron v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2010), 258 O.A.C. 118; 2010 ONCA 71, refd to. [para. 51].

Statutes Noticed:

Post-secondary Learning Act, S.A. 2003, c. P-19.5, sect. 87(1), sect. 87(2), sect. 87(3)(b), sect. 87(6) [para. 37].

Counsel:

C.M. Odishaw and B.A. Guido, for the appellant;

K.S. Feth, Q.C., and M.P. Wall, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on March 25, 2014, before Berger, Costigan and O'Ferrall, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On April 22, 2014, the following memorandum of judgment was filed by the Court.