Cherubini Metal Works Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) et al.,

• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Judge: Roscoe, Cromwell and Oland, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Citation: (2007), 253 N.S.R.(2d) 144 (CA),2007 NSCA 38
• Date: 05 April 2007

Cherubini Metal v. N.S. (A.G.) (2007), 253 N.S.R.(2d) 144 (CA);

    807 A.P.R. 144

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. AP.011

The United Steel Workers of America and The United Steel Workers of America, Local 4122 (appellants) v. Cherubini Metal Works Limited, a body corporate (respondent)

(CA 269398; 2007 NSCA 38)

Indexed As: Cherubini Metal Works Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) et al.

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Roscoe, Cromwell and Oland, JJ.A.

April 5, 2007.

Summary:

A union local filed numerous grievances against Amherst Fabricators (now Cherubini), which resulted in the Attorney General issuing compliance orders under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Cherubini sued the Attorney General, the union and the union local, alleging negligence, conspiracy and intentional interference with Cherubini's economic interests. The union and local applied under rule 13.01 for summary judgment dismissing the claim, submitting that the issues in dispute arose out of the collective agreement and were within the exclusive jurisdiction of an arbitrator under the grievance and arbitration process, that the issues raised in Cherubini's claim were settled by binding mediation or arbitration, that the union and local did not owe a duty of care, and the civil conspiracy action should be dismissed because it should not be extended to the fact situation in this case.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported (2006), 246 N.S.R.(2d) 283; 789 A.P.R. 283, dismissed the application, denying summary judgment. The dispute did not arise out of the collective agreement and, in any event, the collective agreement arbitration process did not provide an effective remedy. The issues raised were not dealt with by mediation or arbitration. A prima facie duty of care arose. It was not for the court, on a summary judgment application, to determine the extent of the application of the law of civil conspiracy. The union and local appealed.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and granted summary judgment dismissing the actions as against the union and local. The trial judge erred in failing to find that the claims against the union and local, in their essential character, arose out of the collective agreement and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the grievance and arbitration process under the Trade Union Act and the collective agreement.

Labour Law - Topic 6906

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Civil action - Jurisdiction - A union local filed numerous grievances against Amherst Fabricators (now Cherubini), which resulted in the Attorney General issuing compliance orders under the Occupational Health and Safety Act - Cherubini sued the Attorney General and the unions (union and local), alleging negligence, conspiracy and intentional interference with Cherubini's economic interests - The unions applied under rule 13.01 for summary judgment dismissing the claim, submitting that the issues in dispute arose out of the collective agreement and were within the exclusive jurisdiction of an arbitrator under the grievance and arbitration process - The trial judge denied summary judgment, finding that the dispute, in its essential character, did not arise from the interpretation, application or alleged violation of a provision of the collective agreement - Further, an arbitrator would not have jurisdiction over two of the parties, the international union and the Attorney General, and the grievance and arbitration process would not provide effective redress - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal disagreed and granted summary judgment dismissing the action as against the unions - The court stated that "I conclude that the essential character of the ... claims against the unions arise out of the collective agreement, that this is not altered by the fact that [Cherubini] has sued the province and the international union which are not parties to that agreement and that the grievance process could have afforded effective redress. The complaints ... fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of an arbitrator under the collective agreement. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the action." - See paragraphs 13 to 86.

Cases Noticed:

Guarantee Co. of North America v. Gordon Capital Corp., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 423; 247 N.R. 97; 126 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 8].

MacNeil v. Bethune et al. (2006), 241 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 767 A.P.R. 1; 2006 NSCA 21, refd to. [para. 9].

Adams v. Cusack et al. (2006), 242 N.S.R.(2d) 66; 770 A.P.R. 66 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

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. 16].

Gendron v. Supply and Services Union of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Local 50057 et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1298; 109 N.R. 321; 66 Man.R.(2d) 81, refd to. [para. 16].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 17].

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (Que.) v. Quebec (Attorney General) et al., [2004] 2 S.C.R. 185; 321 N.R. 290, refd to. [para. 17].

Morin case - see Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (Que.) v. Quebec (Attorney General) et al.

Vaughan v. Canada, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 146; 331 N.R. 64, refd to. [para. 18].

Regina Police Association Inc. and Shotton v. Board of Police Commissioners of Regina, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 360; 251 N.R. 16; 189 Sask.R. 23; 216 W.A.C. 23, refd to. [para. 19].

Nova Scotia Union of Public Employees, Local 2 v. Halifax Regional School Board (1998), 171 N.S.R.(2d) 373; 519 A.P.R. 373 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

International Association of Firefighters, Local 268 v. Halifax (City) (1982), 50 N.S.R.(2d) 299; 98 A.P.R. 299 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

International Nickel Co. of Canada Ltd. v. United Steelworkers, Local 6500 (1979), 23 L.A.C.(2d) 424 (Arb.), refd to. [para. 34].

Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. Polax Tailoring Ltd. (1972), 24 L.A.C. 201 (Ont. Arb. Bd.), refd to. [para. 34].

Cooper (Samuel) & Co. v. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union et al., [1973] 2 O.R. 841 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 34].

Piko v. Hudson's Bay Co. (1998), 116 O.A.C. 92; 41 O.R.(3d) 729 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

Giorno v. Pappas et al. (1999), 117 O.A.C. 187; 42 O.R.(3d) 626; 170 D.L.R.(4th) 160 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Ruscetta v. Graham et al. (1997), 39 O.T.C. 76 (Gen. Div.), affd. (1998), 114 O.A.C. 320 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (1998), 235 N.R. 200; 120 O.A.C. 196 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 49].

Jadwani v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2001), 141 O.A.C. 22; 52 O.R.(3d) 660 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Dwyer v. Canada Post Corp., [1995] O.J. No. 3265 (Gen. Div.), affd. [1997] O.A.C. Uned. 237 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Phillips v. Harrison (2000), 153 Man.R.(2d) 1; 238 W.A.C. 1; 196 D.L.R.(4th) 69; 2000 MBCA 150, refd to. [para. 49].

Haight-Smith v. Neden et al. (2002), 164 B.C.A.C. 236; 268 W.A.C. 236; 211 D.L.R. (4th) 370 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (2002), 303 N.R. 394; 185 B.C.A.C. 160; 303 W.A.C. 160 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 49].

Ferreira v. Richmond (City) et al. (2007), 238 B.C.A.C. 64; 393 W.A.C. 64 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Oliver v. Severance et al. (2007), 262 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 252; 794 A.P.R. 252 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Caressant Care Nursing and Retirement Homes Ltd. v. Priest, [1999] O.T.C. 6 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 49].

McConnell v. Altenburg et al., [2001] O.T.C. 863 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 49].

Brunet v. Ottawa Police Association et al., [2004] O.T.C. 448 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 49].

Lee v. General Motors Co. of Canada, [2003] O.J. No. 5822 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 49].

Soulos et al. v. Leitch et al., [2005] O.T.C. Uned. 403 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 49].

Westmoreland v. Gorman et al., [2003] B.C.T.C. 447 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 49].

LeMoine v. Great West Life Assurance Co., [2002] B.C.T.C. 520; 2002 BCSC 520, refd to. [para. 49].

Ram v. Prasad et al., [1996] B.C.T.C. Uned. A85 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 49].

Haynes v. British Columbia Teachers' Federation et al., [2005] B.C.T.C. 627 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 49].

Ancheta v. Joe et al., [2003] B.C.T.C. 93 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 49].

Bennet v. British Columbia (2007), 234 B.C.A.C. 180; 387 W.A.C. 180 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Bohemier et al. v. Centra Gas Manitoba Inc. et al. (1999), 134 Man.R.(2d) 85; 193 W.A.C. 85; 170 D.L.R.(4th) 310 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (2000), 252 N.R. 395; 148 Man.R.(2d) 160; 224 W.A.C. 160 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 50].

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, refd to. [para. 68].

Bisaillon v. Concordia University, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 666; 348 N.R. 201; 2006 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 70].

New Brunswick v. O'Leary, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 967; 183 N.R. 229; 163 N.B.R.(2d) 97; 419 A.P.R. 97; 125 D.L.R.(4th) 609, refd to. [para. 71].

Statutes Noticed:

Trade Union Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 475, sect. 42 [para. 23].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Adams, George W., Canadian Labour Law (2nd Ed.) (2006 Looseleaf Update), p. 12.572c [para. 47].

Counsel:

Raymond F. Larkin, Q.C., and Bettina Quistgaard, for the appellants;

George W. MacDonald, Q.C., and Michelle Awad, for the respondents;

Michael Pugsley, for the Attorney General of Nova Scotia, not participating.

This appeal was heard on February 16, 2007, at Halifax, N.S., before Roscoe, Cromwell and Oland, JJ.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

On April 5, 2007, Cromwell, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.