Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 707 et al. v. Labour Relations Board (Alta.) et al., (2004) 351 A.R. 265 (QB)

JudgeWatson, J.
CourtCourt of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
Case DateJanuary 28, 2004
Citations(2004), 351 A.R. 265 (QB);2004 ABQB 63

CEPU v. LRB (2004), 351 A.R. 265 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. FE.048

In The Matter Of the Labour Relations Code R.S.A., 2000, c. L-1 as amended

Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 707 and United Nurses of Alberta and Its Locals 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 49, 51, 52, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 88, 89, 90, 92, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 102, 106, 114, 115, 116, 119, 120, 121, 122, 124, 125, 126, 128, 134, 135, 136, 141, 143, 145, 149, 151, 152, 158, 159, 160, 162, 164, 169, 183, 190, 191, 192, 195, 196, 197, 199, 201, 202, 206, 207, 211, 216, 217, 218, 301, 304, 307, 308, 309, 313, 315, and 349 (applicants) v. Alberta Labour Relations Board, Chinook Regional Health Authority (formerly Regional Health Authority #1), Palliser Health Region (formerly Regional Health Authority #2), Calgary Health Region (formerly Regional Health Authority #3), David Thompson Regional Health Authority (formerly Regional Health Authority #4), East Central Health (formerly Regional Health Authority #5), Capital Health (formerly Regional Health Authority #6), Aspen Regional Health Authority (formerly Regional Health Authority #7), Peace Country Health (formerly Regional Health Authority #8), Northern Lights Health Region (formerly Regional Health Authority #9), Alberta Mental Health Board, Provincial Health Authorities of Alberta, Health Sciences Association of Alberta, Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 955, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 717, and Canadian Union of Public Employees and Its Locals 408, 3196, 189, 715, 182, 936, 1240, 3781, 4265, 4306, 838, 934, 2114, 2981, 1461, 41, 2147, 2839, 1461, 1158, 1157, 2112, 2832, 2942, 3062, 890, 1419, 1212, 1808, 1399, and 3266 (respondents)

(0303 20813; 2004 ABQB 63)

Indexed As: Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 707 et al. v. Labour Relations Board (Alta.) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

January 28, 2004.

Summary:

The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 707, and the United Nurses of Alberta and its Locals, sought judicial review of decisions and actions of the Alberta Labour Relations Board relating to the implementation of the Labour Relations (Regional Health Authorities Restructuring) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 27). The applicants' main contention was that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Board and the participating members, which contaminated the designated decisions and actions by denial of natural justice due to lack of impartiality and independence of the Board and those members. The applicants sought: an order of certiorari quashing the actions, policies and decisions of the Board after April 1, 2003; an order of prohibition prohibiting the Board from taking any further action, and from making any further decisions regarding Bill 27's implementation generally as it affected the applicants; and an interim order staying the proceedings of the Board and all arising obligations of the parties regarding Bill 27's implementation generally as it affected the applicants.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 2087

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (considerations incl. bias) - Bias - General - The applicants sought judicial review of decisions and actions of the Alberta Labour Relations Board - The applicants' main contention was that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Board and the participating members, which contaminated the designated decisions and actions by denial of natural justice due to lack of impartiality and independence of the Board and those members - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the applicants' position did not directly approach reasonable apprehension of bias, but rather went to the appearance of lack of impartiality and lack of independence - The court stated that "'Bias', even from the appearance point of view, connotes an actual application or risk of application of partisanship. Lack of the appearance of impartiality or independence is further removed, in the sense that it connotes more of a reputational and confidence situation, viz. that the reasonable person might conclude that there was a risk that bias might occur, consciously or unconsciously" - Accordingly, the court characterized the applicants' argument as one related to impartiality and independence rather than bias - See paragraphs 184 to 185.

Administrative Law - Topic 6411

Judicial review - Prohibition - General principles - When remedy not available - [See second Labour Law - Topic 582 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 8843

Boards and tribunals - Capacity or status - To appear before courts when its decisions are under judicial review - The applicants sought judicial review of decisions and actions of the Alberta Labour Relations Board relating to the implementation of the Labour Relations (Regional Health Authorities Restructuring) Amendment Act, 2003 - The applicants' main contention was that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Board and the participating members, which contaminated the designated decisions and actions by denial of natural justice due to lack of impartiality and independence of the Board and those members - The applicants objected to the standing of the Board to make submissions - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the Board's response to the application did not exceed its permissible participation - While the Board presented argument as to why the application ought to fail, it was addressing a general complaint of reasonable apprehension of bias sounding in documents forming part of its Return - See paragraphs 91 to 95.

Administrative Law - Topic 8868

Boards and tribunals - Members - Independence and impartiality - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2087 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 8868

Boards and tribunals - Members - Independence and impartiality - The applicants sought judicial review of decisions and actions of the Alberta Labour Relations Board - The applicants' main contention was that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Board and the participating members, which contaminated the designated decisions and actions by denial of natural justice due to lack of impartiality and independence of the Board and those members - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that a decision which the Board made, to effectively defer to a court on the subject of whether grounds concerning the Board's Chair raised a reasonable apprehension of bias, did not itself constitute a basis for inferring lack of independence or impartiality - Nor did the court find it to be a failure by the Board to carry out their functions under s. 12(4) of the Labour Relations Code - While it would have been possible for the Board panel to render a decision on the subject of their own impartiality and independence, it was not mandatory for them to do so - The panel's reasons offered for not specifically addressing the issue were essentially practical and were not unreasonable - See paragraphs 206 to 218.

Administrative Law - Topic 8868

Boards and tribunals - Members - Independence and impartiality - The applicants sought judicial review of decisions and actions of the Alberta Labour Relations Board relating to the implementation of the Labour Relations (Regional Health Authorities Restructuring) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 27) - The applicants contended that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Board and the participating members, which contaminated the designated decisions and actions by denial of natural justice due to lack of impartiality and independence - The applicants suggested that the lack of impartiality emerged from three factors: (1) exchanges of the Chair of the Board with the Deputy Minister of Human Resources and Employment; (2) remarks of the Minister of Human Resources and Employment speaking to the Government's view that the implementation of Bill 27 should be handled expeditiously; and (3) the situation of the Board's Vice Chair (the Vice Chair, a lawyer, had recused himself from further involvement in the matter insofar as the process would touch upon a client of his) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - A reasonable observer would not perceive that the impartiality and independence of the Board or its members had been compromised - See paragraphs 219 to 236.

Labour Law - Topic 577

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Judicial review - General - Limitation period - The applicants applied for judicial review, seeking, inter alia, certiorari to quash decisions of the Alberta Labour Relations Board dated June 27, July 14, October 3, October 16 and November 7, 2003 - An issue arose as to whether the application was made beyond the 30 day time limit in s. 19 of the Labour Relations Code in relation to the Board's decisions dated June 27, July 14 and October 3, 2003 - The applicants contended that the word "final" should be attached to the terms "decision, order, directive, declaration, ruling or proceeding" in s. 19 so that if the "decision, order, directive, declaration, ruling or proceeding" was not a final disposition of the issue then the facial date of the "speaking" would not start the 30 days running - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - The June 27, July 14 or October 3, 2003, events did not constitute "reasons" in advance of "real" decisions - The application was timely as against the decisions or orders of October 16 and November 7, 2003, but it was statute barred with respect to the earlier decisions - See paragraphs 62 to 90.

Labour Law - Topic 582

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Judicial review - General - Remedies - Section 19 of the Alberta Labour Relations Code dealt with applications for judicial review of decisions of the Alberta Labour Relations Board - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the language of s. 19 did not exclude the court from making declaratory statements as an adjunct to an order in the nature of certiorari - The court stated that "a declaratory statement that is necessary to give effect to an order in the nature of certiorari cannot be taken to have been intentionally excluded by the Legislature by the manner in which ss. 19(1) and 19(2) are worded" - The court further stated that "because s. 19(2) authorizes effective remedies both expressly and by necessary implication, such as to allow reading to permit some 'necessarily incidental escort' remedies, I do not conclude that the Legislature has in effect purported to effectively exclude most remedies of judicial review by language either with 'exceptional clarity' or indirectly" - See paragraphs 143 to 153.

Labour Law - Topic 582

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Judicial review - General - Remedies - The applicants applied for judicial review of decisions and actions of the Alberta Labour Relations Board relating to the implementation of the Labour Relations (Regional Health Authorities Restructuring) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 27) - The applicants sought, inter alia, an order of prohibition prohibiting the Board from taking any further action, and from making any further decisions regarding Bill 27's implementation generally as it affected the applicants, and an interim order staying the proceedings of the Board and all obligations of the parties regarding Bill 27's implementation - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that a free-standing remedy of a stay or prohibition was not authorized by s. 19 of the Alberta Labour Relations Code and that it was unable to insinuate the technical concept of an order in the nature of prohibition into the list of remedies authorized by s. 19(2) - The court rejected the applicants' contention that even if prohibition was a remedy which had been implicitly excluded by the Legislature, the court should then read it in to be available against the Board under a statutory construction reading of s. 19 - See paragraphs 148 to 149.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79; 49 C.R.(3d) 97; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 37 M.V.R. 9; 19 C.R.R. 354; 52 O.R.(2d) 779; 1985 CarswellOnt 948; [1986] D.L.Q. 85, refd to. [para. 4, footnote 3].

2747-3174 Québec Inc. v. Régie des permis d'alcool du Québec et autres, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 919; 205 N.R. 1; 42 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1; 1996 CarswellQue 965, refd to. [para. 4, footnote 4].

Piller v. Ontario Association of Land Surveyors et al. (2001), 148 O.A.C. 191; 36 Admin. L.R.(3d) 305; 2001 CarswellOnt 2155 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 12].

Canadian Corps of Commissionaires (South Alberta), Re, [2003] Alta. L.R.B.R. 297; [2003] A.L.R.B.D. No. 76 (Lab. Rel. Bd.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 13].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201; 160 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 11 Admin.L.R.(3d) 130; 1998 CarswellNat 2636, refd to. [para. 18, footnote 15].

International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Ship and Dock Foremen, Local 514 v. Prince Rupert Grain Ltd., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 432; 198 N.R. 99; 135 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 40 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1; 96 C.L.L.C. 210-037; 1996 CarswellNat 783, refd to. [para. 18, footnote 16].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321; 125 D.L.R.(4th) 583; 30 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 24 C.C.L.T.(2d) 217; 95 C.L.L.C. 210-027; 12 C.C.E.L.(2d) 1; 30 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1; 1995 CarswellOnt 240; [1995] L.V.I. 2687-1, refd to. [para. 18, footnote 17].

Canadian Pittsburgh Industries v. Industrial Relations Board and International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 725 (1977), 5 A.R. 407; 3 Alta. L.R.(2d) 162; 77 D.L.R.(3d) 581 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 63, footnote 44].

Yorkshire Trust Co. v. Mallett (1986), 71 A.R. 23; 1986 CarswellAlta 690 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63, footnote 44].

Johannesson v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.) (1995), 175 A.R. 34; 32 Alta. L.R.(3d) 373; 34 Admin. L.R.(2d) 64; 1995 CarswellAlta 371 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 63, footnote 46].

Edmonton (City) v. Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (Alta.) et al., [2003] 3 W.W.R. 731; 329 A.R. 172; 33 M.P.L.R.(3d) 258; 10 Alta. L.R.(4th) 140; 2002 CarswellAlta 1479; 2002 ABQB 1013, refd to. [para. 65, footnote 47].

Devon Canada Corp. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.), [2003] A.R. Uned. 183; 3 Admin. L.R.(4th) 154; 2003 CarswellAlta 719; 2003 ABCA 167, refd to. [para. 65, footnote 48].

Howe v. Institute of Chartered Accountants (Ont.) (1994), 74 O.A.C. 26; 19 O.R.(3d) 483; 27 Admin. L.R.(2d) 118; 118 D.L.R.(4th) 129; 1994 CarswellOnt 1019 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1995), 186 N.R. 78; 85 O.A.C. 320; 119 D.L.R.(4th) vii; 21 O.R.(3d) xvi; 27 Admin. L.R.(2d) 118 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 65, footnote 49].

Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Disciplinary Board, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 602; 30 N.R. 119; 106 D.L.R.(3d) 385; 13 C.R.(3d) 1; 50 C.C.C.(2d) 353; 15 C.R.(3d) 315, refd to. [para. 66, footnote 50].

Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers, Local 50 v. General Teamsters Union, Local 362 and Grey Goose Bus Lines (Alberta) Ltd. (1985), 61 A.R. 103; 38 Alta. L.R.(2d) 252; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,058; 1985 CarswellAlta 105 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 72, footnote 54].

R. v. Sheppard, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50; 162 C.C.C.(3d) 298; 210 D.L.R.(4th) 608; 50 C.R.(5th) 68; 2002 CarswellNfld 74; 2002 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 74, footnote 55].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20; 144 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 71 C.P.R.(3d) 417; 50 Admin. L.R.(2d) 199; 1997 CarswellNat 368, refd to. [para. 74, footnote 56].

R. v. Shubley, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 3; 104 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 63; 74 C.R.(3d) 1; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 42 Admin. L.R. 118; 65 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 46 C.R.R. 104; 1990 CarswellOnt 75, refd to. [para. 75, footnote 57].

Newfoundland Telephone Co. v. Director of Investigation & Research, Combines Investigation Act, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 466; 80 N.R. 321; 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 209 A.P.R. 1; 85 N.B.R.(2d) 183; 217 A.P.R. 183; 29 Admin. L.R. 22; 45 D.L.R.(4th) 570; 20 C.P.R.(3d) 19; 1987 CarswellNfld. 316, refd to. [para. 75, footnote 58].

Canada Safeway Ltd. v. United Food and Commercial Workers, Locals 312A, 373A and 401, [2000] 11 W.W.R. 190; 269 A.R. 287; 83 Alta. L.R.(3d) 190; 2000 C.L.L.C. 220-062; 2000 CarswellAlta 672, disagreed with [para. 78, footnote 60].

Pelican Spruce Mills Ltd. v. Pelican Spruce Mills Employees Association and Davis, [1989] A.W.L.D. 125; 86 A.R. 179; 58 Alta. L.R.(2d) 169; 1988 CarswellAlta 462 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 78, footnote 61].

Mental Health Board (Alta.) v. Martin et al. (2003), 327 A.R. 366; 296 W.A.C. 366; 16 Alta. L.R.(4th) 205; 2003 CarswellAlta 833; 2003 ABCA 127, refd to. [para. 79, footnote 63].

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 875 et al. (2003), 345 A.R. 7; 2003 ABQB 999, consd. [para. 85, footnote 68].

Molineaux v. Workers' Compensation Board (Alta.) (2001), 304 A.R. 342; 45 Admin. L.R.(3d) 18; 2001 CarswellAlta 1859 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 85, footnote 69].

Canada (Attorney General) v. P.P.G. Industries (Canada) Ltd. and Pilkington Brothers (Canada) Ltd., [1976] 2 S.C.R. 739; 7 N.R. 209; 65 D.L.R.(3d) 354; 1975 CarswellNat 384, refd to. [para. 88, footnote 70].

Northwestern Utilities Ltd. v. Edmonton (City), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 684; 23 N.R. 565; 12 A.R. 449; 7 Alta. L.R.(2d) 370; 89 D.L.R.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 91, footnote 71].

Alberta Energy Co. v. Goodwell Petroleum Corp. et al. (2003), 339 A.R. 201; 312 W.A.C. 201; 2003 CarswellAlta 1394 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 91, footnote 72].

Consolidated-Bathurst Packaging Ltd. v. International Woodworkers of America, Local 2-69 et al. (1986), 10 O.A.C. 34; 51 O.R.(2d) 481; 20 D.L.R.(4th) 84; 16 Admin. L.R. 37; 85 C.C.L.C. 14,031; 1985 CarswellOnt 902 (Div. Ct.), revd. (1986), 15 O.A.C. 398; 31 D.L.R.(4th) 444; 56 O.R.(2d) 513; 21 Admin. L.R. 180; 86 C.L.L.C. 14,048 (C.A.), affd. [1990] 1 S.C.R. 282; 105 N.R. 161; 38 O.A.C. 321; 68 D.L.R.(4th) 524; 42 Admin. L.R. 1; 90 C.L.L.C. 14,007; 73 O.R.(2d) 676; [1990] O.L.R.B. Rep. 369; 1990 CarswellOnt 821, refd to. [para. 91, footnote 73].

British Columbia Government Employees' Union v. Industrial Relations Council et al. (1988), 26 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 32 Admin. L.R. 78 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 91, footnote 75].

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; 62 D.L.R.(3d) 437; 89 C.L.L.C. 14,050; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 673; 40 Admin. L.R. 181; 40 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 1989 CarswellBC 174, refd to. [para. 91, footnote 76].

Imperial Oil Ltd. et al. v. Alberta (Minister of Environment) et al. (2003), 338 A.R. 1; 2 C.E.L.R.(3d) 236; 3 Admin. L.R.(4th) 252; 2003 CarswellAlta 620; 2003 ABQB 388, refd to. [para. 92, footnote 77].

Skyline Roofing Ltd. v. Workers' Compensation Board (Alta.) et al., [2001] 10 W.W.R. 651; 292 A.R. 86; 34 Admin. L.R.(3d) 289; 95 Alta. L.R.(3d) 126; 2001 CarswellAlta 940 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 92, footnote 78].

Sitler (Lorrie) v. Workers' Compensation Board (Alta.) et al., 2003 ABQB 277; 2003 CarswellAlta 1216, refd to. [para. 92, footnote 79].

R. v. Campbell (S.C.) et al. - see Reference Re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.).

Reference Re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3; 217 N.R. 1; 206 A.R. 1; 156 W.A.C. 1; 121 Man.R.(2d) 1; 158 W.A.C. 1; 156 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 483 A.P.R. 1; [1997] 10 W.W.R. 417; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 15, footnote 82].

Marbury v. Madison (1803), 1 Cranch 137; 5 U.S. 137 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 107, footnote 84].

Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1; 12 Admin. L.R. 16; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 13 C.R.R. 287, refd to. [para. 107, footnote 85].

Skapinker v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357; 53 N.R. 169; 3 O.A.C. 321; 9 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 8 C.R.R. 193; 20 Admin. L.R. 1, refd to. [para. 108, footnote 86].

M'Culloch v. Maryland (State) (1819), 17 U.S. (4 Wheaton's) 316 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 110, footnote 88].

R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201; 139 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 28 C.R.(5th) 207; [2000] 2 W.W.R. 180; 75 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1; 180 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 69 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 1999 CarswellAlta 1055, refd to. [para. 112, footnote 89].

R. v. Sharpe (J.R.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45; 264 N.R. 201; 146 B.C.A.C. 161; 239 W.A.C. 161; 150 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 39 C.R.(5th) 72; 194 D.L.R.(4th) 1, 88 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1; 86 C.R.R.(2d) 1; [2001] 6 W.W.R. 1; 2001 CarswellBC 82; 2001 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 112, footnote 90].

United States of America v. Burns and Rafay, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283; 265 N.R. 212; 148 B.C.A.C. 1; 243 W.A.C. 1; 151 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 195 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 39 C.R.(5th) 205; 85 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1; 81 C.R.R.(2d) 1; [2001] 3 W.W.R. 193; 2001 CarswellBC 272; 2001 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 113, footnote 91].

Beauregard v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 56; 70 N.R. 1; 30 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 26 C.R.R. 59; 1986 CarswellNat 1004, refd to. [para. 113].

Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203; 161 D.L.R.(4th) 385, 55 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 1998 CarswellNat 1299, refd to. [para. 114, footnote 93].

J.P. v. MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. - see MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson et al.

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson et al., [1995] 4 S.C.R. 715; 191 N.R. 260; 68 B.C.A.C. 161; 112 W.A.C. 161; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 262; [1996] 2 W.W.R. 1; 44 C.R.(4th) 277; 130 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 14 B.C.L.R.(3d) 122; 33 C.R.R.(2d) 123; 1995 CarswellBC 974, refd to. [para. 118, footnote 95].

R. v. Miller, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 613; 63 N.R. 321; 14 O.A.C. 33; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 9; 52 O.R.(2d) 585; 49 C.R.(3d) 1; 16 Admin. L.R. 184; 1985 CarswellOnt 124, refd to. [para. 119, footnote 96].

R. v. Skogman, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 93; 54 N.R. 34; 41 C.R.(3d) 1; [1984] 5 W.W.R. 52; 13 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 9 Admin. L.R. 153; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 1984 CarswellBC 822, refd to. [para. 119, footnote 97].

Doucet-Boudreau et al. v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education) et al. (2003), 312 N.R. 1; 218 N.S.R.(2d) 311; 687 A.P.R. 311; 2003 CarswellNS 375; 2003 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 120, footnote 98].

R. v. Cooper (A.R.) (2002), 303 A.R. 399; 273 W.A.C. 399; 2002 CarswellAlta 765; 2002 ABCA 156, leave to appeal refused 2003 CarswellAlta 153 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 120, footnote 99].

Board v. Board, [1919] A.C. 956; 48 D.L.R. 13 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 122, footnote 100].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81; 52 C.R.(3d) 1; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 21 C.R.R. 76; 1986 CarswellOnt 116, refd to. [para. 124, footnote 101].

R. v. Hynes (D.W.) [2001] 3 S.C.R. 623; 278 N.R. 299; 208 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 624 A.P.R. 181; 159 C.C.C.(3d) 359; 206 D.L.R.(4th) 483; 47 C.R.(5th) 278; 88 C.R.R.(2d) 222; 2001 CarswellNfld 316, refd to. [para. 127, footnote 104].

Tétrault-Gadoury v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 22; 126 N.R. 1; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 358; 36 C.C.E.L. 117; 91 C.L.L.C. 14, 023; 50 Admin. L.R. 1; 4 C.R.R.(2d) 12; 1991 CarswellNat 346, refd to. [para. 127, footnote 105].

Miida Electronics Inc. v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. and ITO-International Terminal Operators Ltd., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752; 68 N.R. 241; 28 D.L.R.(4th) 641; 34 B.L.R. 251; 1986 CarswellNat 14, refd to. [para. 127, footnote 106].

R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc. et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 575; 279 N.R. 345; 154 O.A.C. 345; 159 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 206 D.L.R.(4th) 444; 47 C.R.(5th) 316; 88 C.R.R.(2d) 189; 2001 CarswellOnt 4251; 2001 SCC 81, refd to. [para. 132, footnote 107].

Eaton v. Board of Education of Brant County, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241; 207 N.R. 171; 97 O.A.C. 161; 41 C.R.R.(2d) 240; 142 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 1996 CarswellOnt 5035, refd to. [para. 139, footnote 111].

R. v. McIntosh (B.B.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 686; 178 N.R. 161; 79 O.A.C. 81; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 36 C.R.(4th) 171; 1995 CarswellOnt 4, refd to. [para. 140, footnote 112].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554; 149 N.R. 1; 46 C.C.E.L. 1; 93 C.L.L.C. 17,006; 13 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1; 100 D.L.R.(4th) 658; 17 C.H.R.R.D/349; 1993 CarswellNat 1365, refd to. [para. 140, footnote 113].

Osborne, Millar and Barnhart et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 69; 125 N.R. 241; 82 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 4 C.R.R.(2d) 30; 9 C.L.L.C. 14,026; 37 C.C.E.L. 135, refd to. [para. 141, footnote 114].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1; 93 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 92 C.L.L.C. 14,036; 10 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 1992 CarswellNat 1006, refd to. [para. 141, footnote 115].

Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 460; 272 N.R. 1; 149 O.A.C. 1; 201 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 10 C.C.E.L.(3d) 1; 7 C.P.C.(5th) 199; [2001] C.L.L.C. 210-033; 34 Admin. L.R.(3d) 163; 2001 CarswellOnt 2434; 2001 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 147, footnote 118].

Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539; 304 N.R. 76; 173 O.A.C. 38; 2003 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 156, footnote 120].

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; 223 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 48 Admin. L.R.(3d) 33; 31 C.P.C.(5th) 1; 2003 CarswellNB 145; 2003 SCC 20, refd to. [para. 157, footnote 121].

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170; 223 D.L.R.(4th) 599; [2003] 5 W.W.R. 1; 11 B.C.L.R.(4th) 1; 48 Admin. L.R.(3d) 1; 2003 CarswellBC 713; 2003 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 157, footnote 122].

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees et al. v. Lethbridge Community College (2002), 303 A.R. 124; 273 W.A.C. 124; 2002 ABCA 125, refd to. [para. 158, footnote 123].

Alberta v. Labour Relations Board (Alta.) et al. (2002), 293 A.R. 251; 257 W.A.C. 251; 2001 ABCA 299, refd to. [para. 158, footnote 124].

Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5; 122 N.R. 361; 47 O.A.C. 271; 50 Admin. L.R. 44; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 121; [1991] O.L.R.B. Rep. 790; 4 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 91 C.L.L.C. 14,024; 1991 CarswellOnt 976, refd to. [para. 166, footnote 125].

Workers' Compensation Board (N.S.) v. Martin et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504; 310 N.R. 22; 217 N.S.R.(2d) 301; 683 A.P.R. 301; 231 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 4 Admin. L.R.(4th) 1; 28 C.C.E.L.(3d) 1; 2003 CarswellNS 360; 2003 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 167, footnote 126].

Babcock et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. [2002] 3 S.C.R. 3; 289 N.R. 341; 168 B.C.A.C. 50; 275 W.A.C. 50; 214 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 3 C.R.(6th) 1; [2002] 8 W.W.R. 585; 2002 CarswellBC 1576; 2002 SCC 57, refd to. [para. 171, footnote 127].

Ell et al. v. Alberta, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 857; 306 N.R. 1; 330 A.R. 201; 299 W.A.C. 232; 227 D.L.R.(4th) 217; [2003] 10 W.W.R. 401; 11 C.R.(6th) 207; 2 Admin. L.R.(4th) 167; 35 C.P.C.(5th) 1; 16 Alta. L.R.(4th) 1; 2003 CarswellAlta 915; 2003 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 181, footnote 128].

R. v. R.D.S., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484; 218 N.R. 1; 161 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 477 A.P.R. 241; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 353; 10 C.R.(5th) 1; 151 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 1 Admin. L.R.(3d) 74; 1997 CarswellNS 301, refd to. [para. 185, footnote 129].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tobiass et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391; 218 N.R. 81; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 443; 10 C.R.(5th) 163; 151 D.L.R.(4th) 119; 1 Admin. L.R.(3d) 1; 14 C.P.C.(4th) 1; 40 Imm. L.R.(2d) 23; 1 Admin. L.R.(3d) 1; 40 Imm. L.R.(2d) 23; 1997 CarswellNat 1385, refd to. [para. 190, footnote 130].

Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 259; 309 N.R. 201; 231 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 2003 SCC 45, refd to. [para. 191, footnote 131].

Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 249; 281 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 636 A.P.R. 201; 209 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 2002 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 195, footnote 132].

Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539; 304 N.R. 76; 173 O.A.C. 38; 2003 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 196, footnote 133].

Canadian National Railway Co. et al. v. National Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers Union of Canada (CAW) et al. (1992), 92 C.L.L.C. 16,027 (C.L.R.B. No. 917), refd to. [para. 207, footnote 134].

Ocean Port Hotel Ltd. v. Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (B.C.), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 781; 274 N.R. 116; 155 B.C.A.C. 193; 254 W.A.C. 193; 204 D.L.R.(4th) 33; 2001 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 219, footnote 135].

R. v. Mezzo, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 802; 68 N.R. 1; 43 Man.R.(2d) 161; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 52 C.R.(3d) 113; [1986] 4 W.W.R. 577; 30 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 1986 CarswellMan 327, refd to. [para. 225, footnote 136].

R. v. Williams (V.D.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1128; 226 N.R. 162; 107 B.C.A.C. 1; 174 W.A.C. 1; 124 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 15 C.R.(5th) 227; [1999] 4 W.W.R. 711, refd to. [para. 226, footnote 138].

R. v. Find (K.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 863; 269 N.R. 149; 146 O.A.C. 236; 154 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 199 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 42 C.R.(5th) 1; 2001 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 226, footnote 139].

Szilard v. Szacz, [1955] S.C.R. 3, refd to. [para. 231, footnote 141].

Ellis-Don Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al. (1995), 89 O.A.C. 45 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 231, footnote 142].

Ellis-Don Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 221; 265 N.R. 2; 140 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 231, footnote 142].

Winnipeg Free Press Ltd. v. Newspapers Guild, [1974] 3 W.W.R. 475; 44 D.L.R.(3d) 274; 74 C.L.L.C. 14,234 (C.A.), affing. [1974] 1 W.W.R. 609; 44 D.L.R.(3d) 274 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 235, footnote 144].

Statutes Noticed:

Labour Relations Code, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-1, sect. 19 [para. 60].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Alberta, Hansard, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (March 17, 2003), p. 537 [para. 47, footnote 40].

Alberta, Hansard, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (March 18, 2003), p. 587 [para. 47, footnote 40].

Alberta, Hansard, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (March 20, 2003), p. 641 [para. 47, footnote 40].

Hansard (Alta.) - see Alberta, Hansard, Legislative Assembly Debates and Proceedings.

Jacobs, Laverne A., and Kuttner, Thomas S., Discovering What Tribunals Do: Tribunal Standing Before the Courts (2002), 81 Can. Bar Rev. 616, generally [para. 91, footnote 74].

Jones, David Phillip, and de Villars, Anne S., Principles of Administrative Law (3rd Ed. 1999), pp. 404 to 406 [para. 146, footnote 117].

MaCaulay, Robert W., and Sprague, James L.H., Practice and Procedure Before Administrative Tribunals (2002), pp. 34-1 to 34-12 [para. 232, footnote 143].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), pp. 186 to 191 [para. 75, footnote 59].

Counsel:

Leanne M. Chahley (Blair Chahley Seveny), for the applicants, CEP & UNA;

Norman J. Pollock, Q.C. (Witten LLP), for the respondent, Alberta Labour Relations Board;

Craig W. Neuman (Neuman Thompson), for the respondents, Regional Health Authorities, PHA;

Dev A. Chankasingh (Provincial Health Authorities), for the Provincial Health Authorities;

Robert Blair (Blair Chahley Seveny), for the respondent, Alberta Federation of Labour;

Alan Meikle, Q.C. (Alberta Justice), for Alberta (Civil Law) (did not appear);

Rod S. Wiltshire (Alberta Justice), for the respondent Alberta (Constitutional Law) (did not appear);

Linda Huebscher (Canadian Union of Provincial Employees), for CUPE (did not appear);

G. Brent Gawne, for HSAA and AUPE;

No counsel for Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 717;

No counsel for International Union of Operating Employees, Local 955.

This application was heard on January 21-23 and 26, 2004, before Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton. The following reasons for judgment were delivered by Watson, J., on January 28, 2004 and were filed on January 29, 2004.

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Robertson v. Edmonton (City) Police Service (#10),
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • March 26, 2004
    ...to. [para. 53]. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 707 et al. v. Labour Relations Board (Alta.) et al. (2004), 351 A.R. 265; 2004 ABQB 63, refd to. [para. Alberta v. Nilsson (2002), 320 A.R. 88; 288 W.A.C. 88; 8 Alta. L.R.(4th) 83; 2002 ABCA 283, refd to. [para. ......
  • R. v. R.J.H., 2006 ABQB 656
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • September 1, 2006
    ...Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 707 et al. v. Labour Relations Board (Alta.) et al., [2004] A.W.L.D. 280; 351 A.R. 265; 2004 ABQB 63, refd to. [para. 48, footnote Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22; 174 ......
  • Boucher v. Métis Nation of Alberta Association et al., (2008) 434 A.R. 139 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • March 13, 2008
    ...to. [para. 48]. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 707 et al. v. Labour Relations Board (Alta.) et al. (2004), 351 A.R. 265; 2004 ABQB 63, refd to. [para. R. v. R.D.S., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484; 218 N.R. 1; 161 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 477 A.P.R. 241, refd to. [para. 52]. Harr......
  • Harris v. Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Public Complaints Commission, 2017 NLTD(G) 135
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
    • July 18, 2017
    ...party before the tribunal honestly believes there is bias or an appearance of bias: C.E.P., Local 707 v. Alberta Labour Relations Board, 2004 ABQB 63 (Alta. Q.B.) at para. 235.. test is that of a reasonable observer, who is not unduly suspicious or cynical. As I have previously held in thes......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • R. v. R.J.H., 2006 ABQB 656
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • September 1, 2006
    ...Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 707 et al. v. Labour Relations Board (Alta.) et al., [2004] A.W.L.D. 280; 351 A.R. 265; 2004 ABQB 63, refd to. [para. 48, footnote Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22; 174 ......
  • Robertson v. Edmonton (City) Police Service (#10),
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • March 26, 2004
    ...to. [para. 53]. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 707 et al. v. Labour Relations Board (Alta.) et al. (2004), 351 A.R. 265; 2004 ABQB 63, refd to. [para. Alberta v. Nilsson (2002), 320 A.R. 88; 288 W.A.C. 88; 8 Alta. L.R.(4th) 83; 2002 ABCA 283, refd to. [para. ......
  • Boucher v. Métis Nation of Alberta Association et al., (2008) 434 A.R. 139 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • March 13, 2008
    ...to. [para. 48]. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 707 et al. v. Labour Relations Board (Alta.) et al. (2004), 351 A.R. 265; 2004 ABQB 63, refd to. [para. R. v. R.D.S., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484; 218 N.R. 1; 161 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 477 A.P.R. 241, refd to. [para. 52]. Harr......
  • Harris v. Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Public Complaints Commission, 2017 NLTD(G) 135
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
    • July 18, 2017
    ...party before the tribunal honestly believes there is bias or an appearance of bias: C.E.P., Local 707 v. Alberta Labour Relations Board, 2004 ABQB 63 (Alta. Q.B.) at para. 235.. test is that of a reasonable observer, who is not unduly suspicious or cynical. As I have previously held in thes......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT