Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., (1996) 78 B.C.A.C. 162 (SCC)

• Judge: Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 22, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1996), 78 B.C.A.C. 162 (SCC)

BMWE v. Cdn. Pacific Ltd. (1996), 78 B.C.A.C. 162 (SCC);

    128 W.A.C. 162

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Canadian Pacific Limited (appellant) v. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Canadian Pacific System Federation (respondent)

(24317)

Indexed As: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. Canadian Pacific Ltd.

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,

Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

July 4, 1996.

Summary:

An employer, CP Rail, issued a change in shift schedule for certain employees. The employees' union grieved. The union and employer were subject to the Canada Labour Code. The British Columbia Supreme Court granted the union an interlocutory injunction prohibiting the employer from changing the work schedules pending disposition of the grievance by an arbitrator. Thereafter the arbitrator allowed the grievance in part. Nevertheless, the employer appealed, arguing that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to issue the injunction. The union argued that the interlocutory injunction was at an end and the appeal should be dismissed as moot.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 46 B.C.A.C. 243; 75 W.A.C. 243, refused to dismiss the appeal as moot and heard the appeal. The court dis­missed the appeal on the merits. The em­ployer appealed again.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal holding that the British Columbia Supreme Court had jurisdiction to grant the injunction.

Injunctions - Topic 301

Jurisdiction - General - [See Injunctions - Topic 751 ].

Injunctions - Topic 751

Granting an injunction - Bars - Availabil­ity of other remedies - A union grieved a shift schedule change by an employer - The British Columbia Supreme Court granted the union an interlocutory injunc­tion prohibiting the shift changes pending arbitration - The employer appealed, arguing that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to issue the injunction in a labour dispute where the Canada Labour Code provided for settlement of disputes by a tribunal established by the Code - The Supreme Court of Canada held that where the Code provided no adequate alternate remedy, the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to grant the interlocutory in­junction (Law and Equity Act (B.C.), s. 36), notwithstanding that there was no underlying action instituted in the Supreme Court.

Injunctions - Topic 1604.4

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Where no action commenced (free stand­ing injunction application) - A union grieved a shift schedule change by an employer - The union and employer were subject to the Canada Labour Code - The British Columbia Supreme Court granted the union an interlocutory injunction pro­hibiting the employer from changing the work schedules pending disposition of the grievance by an arbitrator - The employer appealed, arguing that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to issue the injunction because no underlying cause of action had been instituted in the Supreme Court - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the absence of a cause of action claiming final relief in the Supreme Court did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to grant the injunction - See paragraphs 13 to 17.

Injunctions - Topic 1611

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Effect of availability of other remedies - [See Injunctions - Topic 751 ].

Injunctions - Topic 1778

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Preservation of status quo - Pending out­come of labour arbitration - [See Injunc­tions - Topic 751 ].

Labour Law - Topic 8867

Industrial relations - Remedies - Injunc­tions, interim - Power to grant - General - [See Injunctions - Topic 751 ].

Cases Noticed:

St. Anne Nackawic Pulp & Paper Co. v. Canadian Pacific 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; 28 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 5].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 5].

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. 5].

Kelso v. Canada, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 199; 35 N.R. 19, refd to. [para. 11].

Lamont v. Air Canada (1981), 126 D.L.R.(3d) 266 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

Burkart et al. v. Dairy Producers Co-operative Ltd. (1990), 87 Sask.R. 241; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 694 (C.A.), dist. [para. 14].

United Steelworkers of America, Local 5795 v. Iron Ore Co. of Canada (1984), 45 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 150; 132 A.P.R. 150; 5 D.L.R.(4th) 24 (Nfld. C.A.), dist. [para. 14].

Siskina (Cargo Owners) v. Distos Com­pania Naviera S.A., [1979] A.C. 210 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 15].

Channel Tunnel Group Ltd. et al. v. Bal­four Beatty Construction Ltd. et al., [1993] 2 W.L.R. 262; 152 N.R. 177 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 15].

Amherst (Town) v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (1994), 133 N.S.R.(2d) 277; 380 A.P.R. 277 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Consolidated Fastfrate Transport Inc. (1995), 83 O.A.C. 1; 125 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Kaiser Resources Ltd. v. Western Canada Beverage Corp. (1992), 71 B.C.L.R.(2d) 236 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Liberty Net and Peterson, [1992] 3 F.C. 155; 48 F.T.R. 285 (T.D.), revsd. [1996] 1 F.C. 804; 192 N.R. 298 (F.C.A.) refd to. [para. 16].

Moore v. British Columbia (1988), 50 D.L.R.(4th) 29 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Canada Safeway Ltd. v. Retail Store Employees Union, Local 832 (1980), 2 Man.R.(2d) 100 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Labour Code - see Labour Code.

Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, sect. 57(1) [para. 4].

Law and Equity Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 224, sect. 36 [para. 4].

Counsel:

H.C. Wendlandt and W.A. Scott Mac­farlane, for the appellant;

Kate A. Hughes, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Canadian Pacific Legal Services, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant;

McGrady, Askew & Fiorillo, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 22, 1996, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following decision was delivered for the court on July 4, 1996, in both official languages by McLachlin, J.