Campbell v. East-West Packers (1969) Ltd., (1982) 18 Man.R.(2d) 293 (CA)

• Judge: Monnin, Hall and O'Sullivan, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: June 02, 1982
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1982), 18 Man.R.(2d) 293 (CA)

Campbell v. East-West Packers (1982), 18 Man.R.(2d) 293 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Campbell v. East-West Packers (1969) Ltd.

(Suit No. 89/82)

Indexed As: Campbell v. East-West Packers (1969) Ltd.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Monnin, Hall and O'Sullivan, JJ.A.

October 26, 1982.

Summary:

An employee brought an action against his former employer for damages for wrongful dismissal. The employer applied to have the employee's statement of claim struck out. The referee dismissed the application. The employer appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench in a decision reported in 15 Man.R.(2d) 212, allowed the employer's appeal, dismissing the employee's statement of claim. The employee appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal but varied the order of the Queen's Bench striking out the statement of claim rather than dismissing it. O'Sullivan, J.A., dissenting in paragraphs 20 to 103, below would have allowed the appeal and set aside the Queen's Bench order.

Labour Law - Topic 7205

Industrial relations - Civil action - Jurisdiction - Although a collective agreement provided for settlement of disputes, an employee sued his employer for damages for wrongful dismissal - The employee submitted that the grievance and arbitration process was blocked because the employer did not give written reasons for dismissal as required by the collective agreement - The employer applied to strike out the statement of claim - The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the employer's application, affirming a decision that the issue of wrongful dismissal was a matter for grievance under the collective agreement - See paragraphs 7 to 19.

Practice - Topic 2205

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Application for - How made - The Manitoba Court of Appeal discussed the appropriateness of attacking a statement of claim by way of motion supported by affidavits - See paragraphs 2 to 6.

Cases Noticed:

O'Connor v. Waldron (1929-30), 65 O.L.R. 407, consd. [para. 6].

Audette v. Rural Municipality of De Salaberry (1956), 63 Man. R. 331, consd. [para. 31].

Eastman v. Pacific Forwarding Company Limited, [1934] 3 W.W.R. 199; 48 B.C.R. 197, consd. [para. 33].

Wenlock v. Moloney and Others, [1965] 2 All E.R. 871, consd. [para. 35].

Woods v. Miramichi Hospital et al. (1966), 59 D.L.R.(2d) 290, consd. [para. 39].

Logan v. Board of School Trustees District No. 14 (1973), 8 N.B.R.(2d) 269; 40 D.L.R.(3d) 152, consd. [para. 42].

McGavin-Toastmaster Limited v. Ainscough et al., [1975] 5 W.W.R. 444; 4 N.R. 618, consd. [para. 45].

Le Syndicat Catholique des Employés de Magasins de Québec Inc. v. La Compagnie Paquet Ltée., [1959] S.C.R. 206; 18 D.L.R.(2d) 346, consd. [para. 48].

Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Onofrio Zambri, [1962] S.C.R. 609; 34 D.L.R.(2d) 654, consd. [para. 48].

Australian Hardwoods Pty. Ltd. and Commissioner for Railways, [1961] 1 W.L.R. 425; [1961] 1 All E.R. 737, consd. [para. 49].

International Longshoreman's Association, Local 273 et al. v. Maritime Employers' Association et al. (1979), 23 N.R. 386; 89 D.L.R.(3d) 289, consd. [para. 50].

General Motors of Canada Ltd. v. Pierre Brunet and the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America Local 1163, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 537; 13 N.R. 233, consd. [para. 52].

O'Neill v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al. (1980), 43 N.S.R.(2d) 215; 81 A.P.R. 215; 81 C.L.L.C. 12,363, consd. [para. 57].

Caines v. Cape Breton Development Corp. (1973), 13 N.S.R.(2d) 285; 9 A.P.R. 285; 39 D.L.R.(3d) 606, refd to. [para. 58].

Downey v. Scotia Square Hotel Ltd. (1974), 16 N.S.R.(2d) 344; 16 A.P.R. 344; 55 D.L.R.(3d) 300, refd to. [para. 58].

City of Winnipeg and Winnipeg Police Department v. Manitoba Police Commission and Irvine (1980), 3 Man.R.(2d) 161, consd. [para. 59].

Tkach et al. v. Comstock International Ltd. and Allied Hydro Council of Manitoba et al. (1973), 41 D.L.R.(3d) 746, consd. [para. 61].

Dunkley v. Misericordia General Hospital (1979), 1 Man.R.(2d) 53, consd. [para. 63].

Bremer Vulkan v. South India Shipping Corporation Ltd., [1981] 2 W.L.R. 141, consd. [para. 66].

Suisse Atlantique Société d'Armement Maritime S.A. v. N.V. Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale, [1966] 2 All E.R. 61, consd. [para. 72].

Photo Production Ltd. v. Securicor Transport Ltd., [1980] 1 All E.R. 556, consd. [para. 75].

Heyman and Another v. Darwins Ltd., [1942] 1 All E.R. 337, consd. [para. 82].

Andre & Cie S.A. v. Marine Transocean Ltd. The Splendid Sun, [1981] 2 All E.R. 993, consd. [para. 84].

Emler v. Display Fixtures Limited (1953), 8 W.W.R.(N.S.) 289, consd. [para. 88].

Statutes Noticed:

Arbitration Act, R.S.M. 1970, c. A-120; C.C.S.M., c. A-120, sect. 8 [para. 98].

Labour Relations Act, S.M. 1972, c. 75; C.C.S.M., c. L-10, sect. 64 [para. 10]; sect. 69(2) [para. 26]; sect. 111 [para. 97]; sect. 127(2) [para. 94].

Labour Relations Act, R.S.N.B. 1952, c. 124, sect. 18(3) [para. 40].

Rights of Labour Act, R.S.O. 1960, c. 354, sect. 3(3) [para. 56].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Holmested and Gale, Rules of Practice, paras. 4.1 [para. 34]; 15.7 [para. 37].

Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Ed.), vol. 36, p. 443 [para. 42].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed.), vol. 2, paras. 543 [para. 92]; 564 [para. 100].

Counsel:

O.G. Ament, for the appellant;

W.L. Ritchie, Q.C., and D.H. Kellis, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on June 2, 1982, by MONNIN, HALL and O'SULLIVAN, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. On October 26, 1982, the decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

HALL, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 19;

O'SULLIVAN, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 20-103;

MONNIN, J.A., concurred with Hall, J.A.