Cape Breton (Regional Municipality) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 933, (2006) 245 N.S.R.(2d) 219 (CA)

• Judge: MacDonald, C.J.N.S., Bateman and Cromwell, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: March 24, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2006), 245 N.S.R.(2d) 219 (CA);2006 NSCA 80

Cape Breton v. CUPE (2006), 245 N.S.R.(2d) 219 (CA);

    777 A.P.R. 219

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. JN.036

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 933 (appellant) v. Cape Breton Regional Municipality (respondent)

(CA 249471; 2006 NSCA 80)

Indexed As: Cape Breton (Regional Municipality) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 933

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

MacDonald, C.J.N.S., Bateman and Cromwell, JJ.A.

June 29, 2006.

Summary:

A union sought reclassification of and an increase in wages for an employee unit on the basis that there had been a substantial increase in their duties and responsibilities. The employer denied the demands. The union filed a grievance. An arbitrator allowed the grievance. The employer sought judicial review.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at 232 N.S.R.(2d) 270; 737 A.P.R. 270, allowed the application. The union appealed.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Labour Law - Topic 9353

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - Decisions of adjudicators, arbitrators or grievance appeal boards - Scope of review (incl. standard) - A union sought reclassification of and an increase in wages for an employee unit under a "re-opener clause", on the basis that there had been a substantial increase in their duties and responsibilities - The employer denied the demands and a grievance was filed - An arbitrator, appointed pursuant to the collective agreement and the Trade Union Act, allowed the grievance - The employer sought judicial review - A chambers judge held that the standard of review was reasonableness - He held that the arbitrator acted unreasonably in considering increases in duties and responsibilities that occurred before the date of the collective agreement - The union appealed - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that the correct standard of review was patent unreasonableness and the arbitrator's award should be upheld using that standard - Further, the chambers judge incorrectly applied the reasonableness standard which he thought was applicable - He simply substituted his view for that of the arbitrator about how the collective agreement should be interpreted - He ought instead to have asked himself whether there was any line of reasoning in the award which provided tenable support for the arbitrator's conclusion.

Labour Law - Topic 9605

Public service labour relations - Collective agreement - Job classifications - Reclassification - [See Labour Law - Topic 9353 ].

Cases Noticed:

Selkirk and District General Hospital and Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Local 1601, Re, [1993] M.G.A.D. No. 9, refd to. [para. 14].

Voice Construction Ltd. v. Construction & General Workers' Union, Local 92, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 609; 318 N.R. 332; 346 A.R. 201; 320 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 28].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982; 226 N.R. 201, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222, refd to. [para. 31].

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170, refd to. [para. 31].

Dr. Q. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (B.C.) - see Dr. Q., Re.

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (U.A.W.), Local 720 v. Volvo Canada Ltd., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 178; 27 N.R. 502; 33 N.S.R.(2d) 22; 57 A.P.R. 22, refd to. [para. 32].

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, Branch 63 v. Alberta Public Service Employees Relations Board and Board of Governors of Olds College, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 923; 42 N.R. 559; 37 A.R. 281, refd to. [para. 32].

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 579 v. Bradco Construction Ltd., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 316; 153 N.R. 81; 106 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 140; 334 A.P.R. 140, refd to. [para. 32].

Canada Safeway Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 454 and Hardy, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1079; 226 N.R. 319; 168 Sask.R. 104; 173 W.A.C. 104, refd to. [para. 32].

Dayco (Canada) Ltd. v. National Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 230; 152 N.R. 1; 63 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 33].

Nova Scotia Government and General Employees Union v. Capital District Health Authority (2006), 244 N.S.R.(2d) 74; 774 A.P.R. 74 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 39].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 39].

St. Anne Nackawic Pulp & Paper Co. v. Canadian Paper 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, refd to. [para. 40].

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees et al. v. Lethbridge Community College, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 727; 319 N.R. 201; 348 A.R. 1; 321 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 44].

Lakeport Beverages v. Teamsters Local Union 938 (2005), 201 O.A.C. 267; 77 O.R.(3d) 543 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Wentworth Arms Hotel Ltd. et al. v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, Local 197, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 846; 24 N.R. 417, refd to. [para. 68].

Bradburn v. Wentworth Arms Hotel Ltd. - see Wentworth Arms Hotel Ltd. et al. v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, Local 197.

Paccar of Canada Ltd. v. Canadian Association of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers, Local 14, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 983; 102 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 71].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207, refd to. [para. 71].

Granite Environmental Inc. v. Labour Relations Board (N.S.) et al. (2005), 238 N.S.R.(2d) 59; 757 A.P.R. 59 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].

Halifax Employers Association v. International Longshoremen's Association, Local 269 (2004), 226 N.S.R.(2d) 159; 714 A.P.R. 159 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2005), 334 N.R. 197; 240 N.S.R.(2d) 399; 763 A.P.R. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 78].

Boeing Canada Technology Ltd., Re, [2001] M.G.A.D. No. 61, refd to. [para. 80].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Donald J.M., and Evans, John M., Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada (1998) (2005 Looseleaf Update), para. 13.5330 [para. 37].

Counsel:

Lionel G. Clarke, for the appellant;

Eric Durnford, Q.C., and Rebecca Pitts, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Halifax, N.S., on March 24, 2006, by MacDonald, C.J.N.S., Bateman and Cromwell, JJ.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. Cromwell, J.A., delivered the following decision for the court on June 29, 2006.