Bisaillon v. Concordia University, (2006) 348 N.R. 201 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Abella and Charron, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 18, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2006), 348 N.R. 201 (SCC);2006 SCC 19;DTE 2006T-508;EYB 2006-105515;[2006] 1 SCR 666;266 DLR (4th) 542;348 NR 201;[2006] SCJ No 19 (QL);JE 2006-1081

Bisaillon v. Concordia Univ. (2006), 348 N.R. 201 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2006] N.R. TBEd. MY.030

Concordia University (appellant) v. Richard Bisaillon, Régie des rentes du Québec, Concordia University Faculty Association (CUFA), John Hall and Howard Fink (res­pondents)

Concordia University Faculty Association (CUFA) (appellant) v. Richard Bisaillon, Régie des rentes du Québec, Concordia University, John Hall and Howard Fink (respondents)

(30363; 2006 SCC 19; 2006 CSC 19)

Indexed As: Bisaillon v. Concordia University

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Abella and Charron, JJ.

May 18, 2006.

Summary:

The employer offered a pension plan to all its unionized and non-unionized employees. All collective agreements in place mentioned in some way that the pension plan was avail­able. The employer unilaterally amended the pension plan. Allegedly, the employer wrongfully used plan funds to pay for contri­bution holidays and administrative costs, and to finance early retirement packages. A union­ized employee moved for authorization to insti­tute a class action against the em­ployer to annul the amendments and to have the funds taken under the amendments re­turned. A union moved for a declinatory exception.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision reported (2003), 36 C.C.P.B. 180, granted the motion. The court ruled that the plan was a benefit provided for in the collective agree­ment, and the dispute therefore resulted from the application of that agree­ment. Conse­quent­ly, only a grievance arbi­trator had jur­is­diction to hear the case. The plaintiff ap­pealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a deci­sion reported (2004), 42 C.C.P.B. 161, allowed the appeal. The employer and the union ap­pealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, McLach­lin, C.J.C., Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., dissent­ing, allowed the appeal and restored the judg­ment at first instance.

Labour Law - Topic 7

General principles and definitions - Gen­eral - Collective representation system - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the collective representation system in labour law - The court stated that the Quebec Labour Code gave certified unions a set of rights, the most important of which was most certainly the mono­poly on representation - Individual nego­tiation of conditions of employment was proscribed -In return, employees improved their posi­tion in the balance of power with the em­ployer - Finally, the col­lective represen­ta­tion system in labour law required the em­ployer to recognize the certified union and to enter in good-faith collective bar­gaining exclusively with it - Employers acquired the right to industrial peace for the term of the collective agre­ement - See paragraphs 23 to 28.

Labour Law - Topic 7

General principles and definitions - Gen­eral - Collective representation system - The employer offered a pension plan to all its unionized and non-unionized employees - All collective agreements in place men­tioned in some way that the pension plan was available - The employer unilaterally amended the pen­sion plan - Allegedly, the employer wrongfully used plan funds to pay for contribution holidays and adminis­trative costs, and to finance early retire­ment packages - A unionized employee moved for authorization to institute a class action against the employer to challenge the amendments - The Supreme Court of Can­ada ruled that a class action was an inappropriate remedy - The subject mat­ter of the dispute was within the arbitrat­or's jurisdiction under each collective agree­ment - The employer's unilateral amend­ments and the question of their validity were linked implicitly if not explicitly to the collective agreements - To authorize a class action here would be to deny the prin­ciples of the exclusivity of the arbitrat­or's jurisdiction and the union's monopoly on employee represen­tation - The Quebec Superior Court was correct in declining jur­isdiction and dis­missing the employee's motion - See paragraphs 1 to 65.

Labour Law - Topic 7041

Industrial relations - Collective agreement -Enforcement - Arbitration - Jurisdiction or powers of arbitrator or board - Gen­eral - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the subject-matter jurisdiction of grievance arbitrators and stated that it had "clearly adopted a liberal position according to which grievance arbitrators have a broad exclusive jurisdiction over issues relating to conditions of employ­ment, provided that those conditions can be shown to have an ex­press or implicit connection to the col­lective agreement" - See paragraphs 30 to 38.

Labour Law - Topic 7041

Industrial relations - Collective agreement -Enforcement - Arbitration - Jurisdiction or powers of arbitrator or board - Gen­eral - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the in personam jurisdiction of grievance arbitrators - The court stated that an arbi­trator had no jurisdiction to hear claims of persons to whom the col­lective agreement did not apply - How­ever, the mere fact that the same issue arose in the collective agreements of several different bargaining units with a single employer did not oust the jurisdic­tion of the grievance arbitrator in favour of the ordinary courts - See paragraphs 39 to 41.

Labour Law - Topic 7041

Industrial relations - Collective agreement -Enforcement - Arbitration - Jurisdiction or powers of arbitrator or board - Gen­eral - [See second Labour Law - Topic 7 ].

Labour Law - Topic 7201

Industrial relations - Collective agreement -Enforcement - Civil action - When avail­able - [See second Labour Law - Topic 7 and Quebec Procedure - Topic 9001 ].

Quebec Procedure - Topic 9001

Class action - General - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the nature of the class action recourse provided under arts. 999 and following of the Code of Civil Procedure (Que.) - The court stated that the class action was a procedural ve­hicle whose use neither modified nor cre­ated substantive rights - It did not alter the jurisdiction of courts and tribu­nals - Deter­mining whether such a pro­ceeding lay in re­spect of issues relating prima facie to the law of collective labour relations thus re­quired a careful review of the institutions and fundamen­tal rules specific to this branch of law - See paragraphs 15 to 22.

Cases Noticed:

Nadon v. Anjou (Ville d'), [1994] R.J.Q. 1823 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Comité d'environnement de La Baie Inc. v. Société d'électrolyse et de chimie Alcan Ltée, [1990] R.J.Q. 655; 29 Q.A.C. 251 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Syndicat national des employés de l'Hô­pital St-Charles-Boromée v. Lapointe, [1980] C.A. 568, refd to. [para. 16].

Hollick v. Metropolitan Toronto (Munici­pality) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 158; 277 N.R. 51; 153 O.A.C. 279; 2001 SCC 68, refd to. [para. 16].

Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. et al. v. Dutton et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 534; 272 N.R. 135; 286 A.R. 201; 253 W.A.C. 201; 2001 SCC 46, refd to. [para. 16].

Malhab v. Métromédia C.M.R. Montréal Inc., [2003] R.J.Q. 1011 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Tremaine v. Robins (A.H.) Canada Inc., [1990] R.D.J. 500 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Québec (Curateur public) v. Syndicat national des employés de l'Hôpital St-Ferdinand et autres, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 211; 202 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 18].

Carrier v. Québec (Ministre de la Santé et des Services sociaux), [2000] Q.J. No. 3048, consd. [para. 19].

Hamer v. Québec (Sous-ministre du Re­venu), [1998] Q.J. No. 1600, consd. [para. 21].

Noël v. Société d'énergie de la Baie James, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 207; 271 N.R. 304; 2001 SCC 39, consd. [paras. 24, 71].

Syndicat catholique des employés de ma­gasins de Québec Inc. v. Compagnie Paquet Inc., [1959] S.C.R. 206, refd to. [para. 25].

Garon (Isidore) ltée v. Syndicat du bois ouvré de la région de Québec inc. (C.S.D.) et al. (2006), 344 N.R. 1; 2006 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 25].

Hémond, Grenier and Ouellet v. Syndicat des travailleurs(euses) de l'abbatoir de Princeville, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 962; 103 N.R. 193; 27 Q.A.C. 185, refd to. [para. 25].

Paccar of Canada Ltd. v. Canadian Asso­ciation of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers, Local 14, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 983; 102 N.R. 1; 62 D.L.R.(4th) 437, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 29].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, consd. [paras. 29, 67].

Regina Police Association Inc. and Sho­tton v. Board of Police Commissioners of Regina, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 360; 251 N.R. 16; 189 Sask.R. 23; 216 W.A.C. 23; 2000 SCC 14, consd. [paras. 31, 67].

New Brunswick v. O'Leary, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 967; 183 N.R. 229; 163 N.B.R.(2d) 97; 419 A.P.R. 97, refd to. [para. 33].

Social Services Administration Board (Parry Sound District) v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 324 et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 157; 308 N.R. 271; 177 O.A.C. 235; 2003 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 33].

St. Anne Nackawic Pulp & Paper Co. v. Canadian Paper Workers Union, Local 219, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 704; 68 N.R. 112; 73 N.B.R.(2d) 236; 184 A.P.R. 236, refd to. [para. 33].

Allen et al. v. Alberta, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 128; 301 N.R. 174; 327 A.R. 1; 296 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 33].

Asbestos (J.M.) Inc. v. Lemieux, [1986] Q.J. No. 613 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Union international des employés profes­sionnels et de bureau, locale 480 v. Al­bright & Wilson Amérique ltée (2000), 28 C.C.P.B. 306 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 36, 85].

Emerson Electric Canada ltée v. Foisy (2006), 50 C.C.P.B. 287; 2006 QCCA 12, refd to. [paras. 37, 85].

Hydro-Québec v. Corbeil (2005), 47 C.C.P.B. 200; 2005 QCCA 610, refd to. [paras. 38, 85].

Association provinciale des retraites d'Hydro-Québec v. Hydro-Québec, [2005] R.J.Q. 927; 2005 QCCA 304, refd to. [para. 38].

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 7; 137 N.R. 7; 54 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 40].

Québec v. Paquet (Collège d'enseigne­ment général et professionnel régional de Lanaudière et Syndicat des profes­sion­nelles et professionnels du gouver­nement du Québec, section locale 8), [2005] Q.J. No. 678; 2005 QCCA 109, refd to. [paras. 41, 94].

Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Em­ployees v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 495; 198 N.R. 161; 78 B.C.A.C. 162; 128 W.A.C. 162, refd to. [para. 42].

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (Que.) v. Que­bec (Attorney General) et al., [2004] 2 S.C.R. 185; 321 N.R. 290; 2004 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 72].

Goudie et al. v. Ottawa (City), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 141; 301 N.R. 201; 170 O.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 14, consd. [para. 79].

Lacroix v. Société Asbestos ltée (2004), 43 C.C.P.B. 267 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

Vidéotron ltée v. Turcotte, [1988] Q.J. No. 2742 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].

London Life Insurance Co. v. Dubreuil Brothers Employees Association (2000), 134 O.A.C. 382; 49 O.R.(3d) 766 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].

Elkview Coal Corp. v. United Steelworkers of America, Local 9346 et al. (2001), 156 B.C.A.C. 244; 255 W.A.C. 244; 205 D.L.R.(4th) 80; 2001 BCCA 488, refd to. [para. 86].

Board of Education of Toronto v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation District 15 et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 487; 208 N.R. 245; 98 O.A.C. 241; 144 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 94].

Toronto (City) et al. v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291; 2003 SCC 63, refd to. [para. 94].

Voice Construction Ltd. v. Construction & 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. 94].

Statutes Noticed:

Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-25, art. 55, art. 462 [para. 98].

Labour Code, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-27, sect. 1(f) [para. 30]; sect. 21 [para. 23, 26]; 100.1 [para. 30].

Supplemental Pension Plans Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. R-15.1, sect. 146.5 [paras. 43, 44].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Beaulieu, Jacqueline, Loi sur les régimes complémentaires de retraite: annotations et commentaires (1992) (1998 Looseleaf Supp., No. 6), vol. 1, pp. 245-1, 245-2 [para. 43].

Blouin, Rodrique and Morin, Fernand, Droit de l'arbitrage de grief (5th Ed. 2000), p. 149 [para. 39].

Crête, Raymonde, Les régimes complé­mentaires de retraite au Québec: une institution à découvrir en droit civil (1989), 49 R. du B. 177, p. 209 [para. 43].

Ferland, Denis, and Emery, Benoît, Pré­cis de procédure civile du Québec (4th Ed. 2003), vol. 2, pp. 876, 877 [para. 17].

Gagnon, Robert P., Droit de travail du Québec (5th Ed. 2003), pp. 289 [para. 23]; 506 [para. 29]; 546 [para. 42]; 547 [paras. 40, 42].

Gagnon, Robert P., LeBel, Louis and Verge, Pierre, Droit du travail (2nd Ed. 1991), p. 710 [para. 42].

Lauzon, Yves, Le recours collectif (2001), pp. 5, 9 [para. 17].

Savard, Manon and Anouk, Violette, Les af­faires Weber, O'Leary et Canadien Pa­cifique Ltée: que reste-t-il pour les cours de justice, in Développements récents en droit du travail (1997), vol. 49, pp. 72, 73 [para. 38].

Counsel:

Guy Du Pont, Nancy Boyle, Nick Ro­drigo and Jean-Philippe Groleau, for the appel­lant/respondent Concordia University;

John T. Keenan and Harold C. Lehrer, for the respondent/appellant Concordia Uni­versity Faculty Association;

Mario Évangéliste and Marie Pépin, for the respondent Richard Bisaillon;

No one appeared for the respondents Régie des rentes du Québec, John Hall and Howard Fink.

Solicitors of Record:

Desjardins Ducharme Stein Monast, Mon­tréal, Quebec; Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg, Montréal, Quebec, for the appellant/respondent Concordia Univer­sity;

Keenan Lehrer, Montréal, Quebec, for the respondent/appellant Concordia Univer­sity Faculty Association;

Pépin et Roy, Montréal, Quebec, for the respondent Richard Bisaillon.

This appeal was heard on December 14, 2005, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Abella and Char­ron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on May 18, 2006, and the following opinions were filed:

LeBel, J. (Deschamps, Abella and Char­ron, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 65;

Bastarache, J., dissenting (McLachlin, C.J.C., and Binnie, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 66 to 100.