Burning Down the (Boat) House: How the Common Law Helps Make Sense of Weber

• Author: Brian Langille
• Pages: 125-139

{  }

•

 

Burning Down the (Boat) House:

HowtheCommon Law Helps Make

SenseofWeber

Brin Lnie

INTRODUCTION — “IT WAS TWENTY YEARS AGO TODAY”

This is a curious little paper. I like little papers — but I am not so sure I

like them to be curious, at least at this stage of the game. But here it is.

First, a few words about what this paper is not. This paper is not an at-

tempt to have the nal say about Weber v Ontario Hydro, nor to reconcile

all of the jurisprudence which has followed. I have not read all of the post-

Weber decisions that try to make sense of the case. (I have read a few but

not all). However, having a complete grasp of that material is not critical

in this instance because I am not interested, at least for the purposes of

this paper, in what I see as the common view of Weber and the problems

it presents to the labour law community. Nor am I interested in the way

many arbitrators and Courts have responded to Weber — for example, by

actually dealing with, or deciding not to deal with defamation claims as

such. So this is not a paper which seeks to make a contribution to the

mainstream debate about Weber and its legal legacy.

Rather, I wish to pursue the idea that the mainstream debate, as far

as I have had to deal with it and as far as I can understand it, is often, in

 []  SCR  [Weber].

 See the discussion of Innis Christie’s well known decision in ABT Building Products

Canada Ltd v Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local

434 (),  LAC (th)  [ABT Building] below at Part D.