Brandon (City) and Brandon Board of Police Commissioners v. Manitoba Police Commission and Dunton, (1987) 48 Man.R.(2d) 166 (QB)

• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: May 19, 1987
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1987), 48 Man.R.(2d) 166 (QB)

Brandon v. Police Comm. (1987), 48 Man.R.(2d) 166 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

City of Brandon and City of Brandon Board of Police Commissioners (applicants) v. Manitoba Police Commission and Constable W.C. Dunton (respondents)

(Suit No. 614/86)

Indexed As: Brandon (City) and Brandon Board of Police Commissioners v. Manitoba Police Commission and Dunton

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Brandon Judicial Centre

Scott, A.C.J.Q.B.

May 19, 1987.

Summary:

A Brandon policeman was accused of sexually assaulting a woman driver he had stopped on patrol. The collective agreement between the city and the police union provided that the city would "provide legal counsel for the defence of any action initiated against the employee as a result of the performance of his assigned duties". The policeman was suspended pending disposition of the criminal charge. He grieved and an arbitration board reinstated him, but refused to deal with the issue of legal fees. The policeman pleaded guilty to common assault. The city refused to pay his legal fees because of his conduct. Instead of grieving, he applied under s. 26(4) of the Provincial Police Act to the Manitoba Police Commission on the legal fees issued. The commission allowed his appeal. The city applied to quash the commission's decision on the grounds that the commission had no jurisdiction over a matter required by ss. 64 and 69 of the Labour Relations Act to be settled through the grievance procedure and arbitration and that the commission's decision was wrong.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that the commission had jurisdiction, but that the commission's decision was patently unreasonable. The court held that the commission had jurisdiction, because the heart of its decision related to the policeman's conduct (which incidently required interpretation of the collective agreement) and not to the interpretation of the collective agreement. On the merits the court held that it was not part of the policeman's duty to assault the woman and that the commission was wrong in ruling that his conduct was merely an unauthorized way of performing an authorized duty.

Administrative Law - Topic 6166.1

Judicial review - Statutory appeals - Grounds - Error of law - Unreasonable interpretation - A collective agreement between a city and a police union provided that the city would "provide legal counsel for the defence of any action instituted against the employee as a result of his assigned duties" - A policeman was accused of assaulting a woman driver he had stopped on patrol - He was suspended - He grieved and an arbitration board reinstated him, but refused to deal with the issue of legal fees - The policeman pleaded guilty to the assault charge and the city refused to pay his legal fees - Instead of grieving he applied under s. 26(4) of the Provincial Police Act to the Police Commission on the legal fees issue - The commission allowed his claim, ruling that the policeman's conduct was merely an unauthorized way of performing an authorized duty - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that the commission's decision was patently unreasonable, because it was no part of the officer's duty to assault the woman - See paragraphs 37 to 46.

Labour Law - Topic 7003

Industrial relations - Collective agreements - Enforcement - General - Mandatory dispute settlement process - Where applicable - A collective agreement between a city and a police union provided that the city would "provide legal counsel for the defence of any action instituted against the employee as a result of his assigned duties" - A policeman was accused of assaulting a woman driver he had stopped on patrol - He was suspended - He grieved and an arbitration board reinstated him, but refused to deal with the issue of legal fees - The policeman pleaded guilty to the assault charge and the city refused to pay his legal fees - Instead of grieving he applied under s. 26(4) of the Provincial Police Act to the Police Commission on the legal fees issue - The commission allowed his appeal - The city appealed on the ground inter alia that the commission had no jurisdiction over a matter which included the interpretation of a collective agreement, because ss. 64 and 69 of the Labour Relations Act required disputes to be settled through the grievance procedure and arbitration - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that the commission had jurisdiction, because the heart of its decision related to the policemans' conduct (which incidentally involved interpretation of the collective agreement), and not to the interpretation of the collective agreement - See paragraphs 23 to 32.

Labour Law - Topic 7016

Industrial relations - Collective agreements - Enforcement - General - Election of remedies - What constitutes - A grievance arbitration board allowed a policeman's grievance, but reserved the issue of entitlement of the policeman to legal fees reimbursement - When the employer later refused to pay the policeman's legal fees, he appealed to the police commission under s. 26(4) of the Provincial Police Act - The employer submitted that he was estopped from appealing to the commission, because he had originally elected grievance arbitration - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that the policeman could appeal the issue of legal fees to the commission, because the arbitration board did not deal with it - See paragraphs 33 to 36.

Police - Topic 6665

Police commissions - Inquiry - Jurisdiction - [See Labour Law - Topic 7016 above].

Police - Topic 6667

Police commissions - Inquiry - Legal expenses of officers - A collective agreement between a city and a police union provided that the city would "provide legal counsel for the defence of any action instituted against the employee as a result of his assigned duties" - A policeman was accused of assaulting a woman driver he had stopped on patrol - He was suspended - He grieved and an arbitration board reinstated him, but refused to deal with the issue of legal fees - The policeman pleaded guilty to the assault charge and the city refused to pay his legal fees - Instead of grieving he appealed to the Police Commission - The commission allowed his claim, ruling that the policeman's conduct was merely an unauthorized way of performing an authorized duty - The city appealed on the merits and on the ground that the commission had no jurisdiction over a matter which included the interpretation of a collective agreement, because ss. 64 and 69 of the Labour Relations Act required disputes to be settled through the grievance procedure and arbitration - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that the commission had jurisdiction, because the heart of its decision related to the policeman's conduct (which incidentally involved interpretation of the collective agreement), and not to the interpretation of the collective agreement - See paragraphs 23 to 32 - The court held, however, that the commission's decision was patently unreasonable, because it was not part of the policeman's duty to assault the woman - See paragraphs 37 to 46.

Cases Noticed:

St. Anne-Nackawic Pulp & Paper Co. Ltd. v. Canadian Paper Workers Union, Local 219 (1986), 68 N.R. 112; 73 N.B.R.(2d) 236; 184 A.P.R. 236; 28 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 23].

Central Canadian Structures Ltd. and Director of Employment Standards Division, Re (1984), 26 Man.R.(2d) 297; 8 D.L.R.(4th) 514 (C.A.), consd. [para. 29].

Health Labour Relations Association of British Columbia and Prins, Re (1982), 140 D.L.R.(3d) 744 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [paras. 29, 42].

Leisure World Nursing Homes Ltd. and Director of Employment Standards, Re (1980), 112 D.L.R.(3d) 540 (Ont. Div. C.), consd. [para. 29].

Winnipeg and Winnipeg Police Department v. Manitoba Police Commission and Irvine (1980), 3 Man.R.(2d) 161, appld. [paras. 31, 41].

R. (ex rel. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 995 et al.) v. Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board and Morris Rodweeder Company Limited, 78 C.L.L.C. 112 (Sask. C.A.), consd. [para. 34].

Baxter v. Silverwood Industries Limited (1986), 42 Man.R.(2d) 180, consd. [para. 34].

Keas v. Canadian Association of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers, Local 7 (1985), 35 Man.R.(2d) 27 (Q.B.), appld. [para. 39].

Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Corporation, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 227; 26 N.R. 341; 25 N.B.R.(2d) 237; 51 A.P.R. 237; 97 D.L.R.(3d) 417, appld. [para. 39].

Organ v. Bell (1981), 13 Man.R.(2d) 208, dist. [para. 43].

Statutes Noticed:

Labour Relations Act, S.M. 1972, c. 75; C.C.S.M., c. L-10, sect. 64, sect. 69 [para. 23].

Provincial Police Act, R.S.M. 1970, c. P-150; C.C.S.M., c. P-150, sect. 26(4) [para. 16].

Counsel:

Anna M. Hunt-Binkley, for the City of Brandon and the Brandon Board of Police Commissioners;

Jacob P. Janzen, for Constable Dunton and the Brandon Police Association;

A.L. Berg, for the Manitoba Police Commission.

This case was heard at Brandon, Manitoba, before Scott, A.C.J.Q.B., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, who delivered the following judgment on May 19, 1987.