Bron v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., 2010 ONCA 71

• Judge: Doherty, Gillese and Epstein, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: October 20, 2009
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: 2010 ONCA 71;(2010), 258 O.A.C. 118 (CA)

Bron v. Can. (A.G.) (2010), 258 O.A.C. 118 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] O.A.C. TBEd. FE.006

Ian Bron (plaintiff/appellant) v. Attorney General of Canada, Gerald Frappier, Joanne St-Onge, Laureen Kinney and Marc Grégoire (defendants/respondents)

(C50490; 2010 ONCA 71)

Indexed As: Bron v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Doherty, Gillese and Epstein, JJ.A.

January 29, 2010.

Summary:

The plaintiff, a federal civil servant covered by a collective agreement and self-described whistle-blower, commenced a tort claim against his supervisors and his employer, the federal government (the defendants), alleging that he was harassed, maligned and otherwise mistreated. The defendants applied to strike out the statement of claim on the basis that the plaintiff did not fall within the whistle-blower category, and even if he did, the applicable statutory provisions of the Public Service Labour Relations Act deprived the Superior Court of jurisdiction to entertain the claim.

The Ontario Superior Court (motions judge) held that the plaintiff was not a whistle-blower. The motions judge allowed the application and struck the statement of claim, holding that s. 236 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act constituted an explicit ouster of the Superior Court's jurisdiction over claims like those advanced by the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The court held that while there was a whistle-blower flavour to at least some of the plaintiff's complaints, it was unnecessary to decide whether the motion judge's finding was unreasonable. On the court's analysis, even assuming that the plaintiff was properly characterized as a whistle-blower, his claim was properly struck.

Labour Law - Topic 9076

Public service labour relations - Remedies - Civil action - When available - The plaintiff, a federal civil servant who was covered by a collective agreement and self-described whistle-blower, commenced a tort claim against his supervisors and his employer, the federal government (the defendants), alleging that he was harassed, maligned and otherwise mistreated - The defendants applied to strike out the statement of claim, arguing that the plaintiff did not fall within the whistle-blower category, and even if he did, the applicable statutory provisions deprived the Superior Court of jurisdiction to entertain the claim - A motions judge held that the plaintiff was not a whistle-blower - The judge struck the statement of claim, holding that s. 236 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act (PSLRA) constituted an explicit ouster of the Superior Court's jurisdiction over claims like those advanced by the plaintiff - The plaintiff appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The court held that it was unnecessary to decide the whistle-blower issue - The court agreed that s. 236 ousted the court's jurisdiction over claims that could be the subject of a grievance under s. 208 of the PSLRA - The court rejected an argument by the plaintiff that s. 236 did not apply to whistle-blower complaints.

Labour Law - Topic 9655

Public service labour relations - Collective agreement - Civil action - Jurisdiction - [See Labour Law - Topic 9076 ].

Cases Noticed:

Fraser v. Public Service Staff Relations Board, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 455; 63 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 10].

Vaughan v. Canada, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 146; 331 N.R. 64, dist. [para. 13].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 25].

Pleau v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1999), 181 N.S.R.(2d) 356; 560 A.P.R. 356; 182 D.L.R.(4th) 373 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2000] 2 S.C.R. v; 262 N.R. 399; 190 N.S.R.(2d) 200; 594 A.P.R. 200, refd to. [para. 26].

Guenette et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2002), 162 O.A.C. 371; 60 O.R.(3d) 601 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Van Duyvenbode v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2007] O.T.C. Uned. F04 (Sup. Ct.), affd. [2009] O.A.C. Uned. 646; 2009 ONCA 11, refd to. [para. 29].

Hagel v. Canada. (Attorney General) (2009), 352 F.T.R. 22 (F.C.), affd. (2009), 402 N.R. 104 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

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; 136 D.L.R.(4th) 289, refd to. [para. 32].

Statutes Noticed:

Public Service Labour Relations Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, sect. 236 [para. 20].

Counsel:

David Jewitt and Alison Longmore, for the appellant;

Gregory S. Tzemenakis, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 20, 2009, before Doherty, Gillese and Epstein, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered for the court by Doherty, J.A., on January 29, 2010.