CJA v. LRB,

• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Judge: Popescul, J.
• Neutral Citation: 2011 SKQB 380
• Citation: 2011 SKQB 380,(2011), 378 Sask.R. 82 (QB),[2011] CarswellSask 712,[2011] SJ No 671 (QL),210 CLRBR (2d) 35,213 ACWS (3d) 1020,378 Sask R 82,378 Sask.R. 82,(2011), 378 SaskR 82 (QB),[2011] S.J. No 671 (QL),378 SaskR 82
• Date: 13 October 2011
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)

CJA v. LRB (2011), 378 Sask.R. 82 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] Sask.R. TBEd. NO.048

Saskatchewan Regional Council of Carpenters, Drywall, Millwrights and Allied Workers (The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1985 and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Millwrights Union, Local 1021) and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 529 (applicants) v. Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (respondent) and Construction Workers Union, Local 151, Tercon Industrial Works Ltd., Westwood Electric Ltd., Canonbie Contracting Limited, Willbros Construction Services (Canada) L.P. and Pyramid Corporation (respondents) and Local 01 Saskatchewan of the International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers (Local 01) and The International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers (BAC), Saskatchewan Provincial Building Trades Council, Saskatchewan Joint Board, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Saskatchewan Government and General Employees' Union, and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1975 (respondents)

Saskatchewan Provincial Building Trades Council, Saskatchewan Joint Board, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, and Saskatchewan Government and General Employees' Union (applicants) v. Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (respondent) and Construction Workers Union, Local 151, Tercon Industrial Works Ltd., Westwood Electric Ltd., Canonbie Contracting Limited, Willbros Construction Services (Canada) L.P., and Pyramid Corporation (respondents) and Saskatchewan Regional Council of Carpenters, Drywall, Millwrights and Allied Workers (The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1985 and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Millwrights Union, Local 1021), Local 01 Saskatchewan of the International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers (Local 01) and The International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers (BAC), and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1975 (respondents)

Local 01 Saskatchewan of the International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers (Local 01) and The International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers (BAC) (applicants) v. Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (respondent) and Construction Workers Union, Local 151, Tercon Industrial Works Ltd., Westwood Electric Ltd., Canonbie Contracting Limited, Willbros Construction Services (Canada) L.P. and Pyramid Corporation (respondents) and Saskatchewan Regional Council of Carpenters, Drywall, Millwrights and Allied Workers (The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1985 and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Millwrights Union, Local 1021) and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 529, Saskatchewan Provincial Building Trades Council, Saskatchewan Joint Board, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Saskatchewan Government and General Employees' Union, and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1975 (respondents)

(2011 Q.B.G. No. 472; 2011 SKQB 380)

Indexed As: United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1985 et al. v. Labour Relations Board (Sask.) et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Popescul, J.

October 13, 2011.

Summary:

The applicant Unions filed applications with the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (SLRB) to have the Construction Workers Union, Local 151 (CLAC) declared a "company dominated union" (CDO). If successful, CLAC would be ineligible to be certified on the basis that it would not fit the definition of a "trade union" (s. 2(1) of the Trade Union Act) because "company dominated unions" could not be "trade unions". The allegations contained within the various CDO applications simply mirrored the definition of a CDO set forth in s. 2(e) of the Act. Two of the respondent employers applied for particulars. SLRB's Executive Officer ordered the Unions to provide particulars. A panel of the SLRB confirmed that decision (the first decision). CLAC and the respondent employers applied to have the CDO applications summarily dismissed on the basis that the Unions had not set forth sufficient allegations to disclose an arguable case (s. 18(p) of the Act). A panel of the SLRB summarily dismissed the CDO applications (the second decision). The Unions applied for judicial review of both decisions. All of the Unions contended that the decisions should be set aside because the premature termination of their applications was unreasonable, breached the rules of natural justice and deprived them of their right to a fair hearing. Some of the Unions also sought to have the second decision quashed on the basis of bias.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed all aspects of the judicial review application.

Administrative Law - Topic 2088

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (considerations incl. bias) - Bias - Apprehension of - In this judicial review proceeding, the applicant Unions argued that the decision of the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (SLRB) to proceed with part of the oral hearing in the absence of one of the counsel, and its comments throughout the hearing, gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - While parties ought to raise the allegation of bias at the earliest practicable opportunity, the Unions had failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias - The Chair had indicated that the SLRB had made its decision regarding its jurisdiction and then acknowledged that that decision was judicially reviewable - Informing the parties of their right to appeal was not evidence of bias - See paragraphs 156 to 162.

Administrative Law - Topic 2100

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal - Practice and remedies - Time to raise objection on ground of bias - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2088 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2264

Natural justice - Duty of fairness - When required - This was an application for judicial review respecting decisions rendered by the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (SLRB) - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that "The SLRB is a public authority making decisions which are not of a legislative nature and which affect the rights, privileges or interests of employees, unions, employers and more. Therefore, it owed a duty of procedural fairness when making those decisions." - As to the content of that duty, "[o]n the spectrum from no procedural protections being afforded to one resembling a criminal trial (where the most procedural protections are required), the decisions of the SLRB fall closer to the latter ... Therefore, the duty of fairness requires procedural protections closer to that of the trial model" - See paragraphs 78, 148 and 149.

Administrative Law - Topic 2266

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - What constitutes procedural fairness - The applicant Unions filed applications with the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (SLRB) to have another Union (CLAC) declared a "company dominated union" (CDO) - If successful, CLAC would be ineligible to be certified on the basis that it would not fit the definition of a "trade union" (s. 2(1) of the Trade Union Act) because "company dominated unions" could not be "trade unions" - The allegations contained within the various CDO applications simply mirrored the definition of a CDO set forth in s. 2(e) of the Act - Two of the respondent employers applied for particulars - SLRB's executive officer ordered the Unions to provide particulars - Summary dismissal motions were initiated by CLAC and the respondent employers on the basis that the CDO applications, together with the particulars provided, did not disclose an arguable case - Three Unions then applied to the SLRB for orders requiring the production of "documents and things" relating to the CDO applications (s. 18(b)) - CLAC and the respondent employers formally applied to have the CDO applications summarily dismissed on the basis that the applicant Unions had not set forth sufficient allegations to disclose an arguable case (s. 18(p)) - A panel of the SLRB summarily dismissed the CDO applications - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the judicial review application - The procedural choices were all within the SLRB's expertise, and within its authority to order - The procedures complied with the requirements of natural justice and afforded the parties procedural fairness - See paragraphs 147 to 155.

Administrative Law - Topic 2272

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Circumstances or powers to which duty applies (incl. extent of duty) - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2264 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3345

Judicial review - General - Practice - Affidavit evidence - This was an application for judicial review respecting decisions rendered by the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board - Some of the applicant Unions alleged bias - All of the Unions alleged that there had been breaches of natural justice - In support of the application, one of the Unions filed an affidavit sworn by its president - The respondents objected to the affidavit for two reasons: it was filed late; and it contained irrelevant and extraneous materials so as to constitute an improper attempt to supplement the record - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench ruled that the impugned affidavit was admissible - Although filing the affidavit two days after the deadline imposed for the filing of the briefs did not technically breach the scheduling fiat, it violated the spirit and intention of the imposed time line - Nonetheless, no prejudice had been alleged or established - With respect to the extraneous material objection, the affidavit was admissible because it was filed to support the bias and natural justice arguments and served to place before the court all of the material which bore on the arguments that the applicants were entitled to make - See paragraphs 15 to 24.

Administrative Law - Topic 9118

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Curial deference to decisions of tribunals - [See both Labour Law - Topic 576 ].

Labour Law - Topic 405

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Boards - General - Duty to act fairly - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2264 ].

Labour Law - Topic 523

Labour relation boards and judicial review - Powers of board - Incidental issues - The applicant Unions sought to have another union (CLAC) declared to be a "company dominated organization" (CDO) - The CDO applications merely regurgitated the CDO definition contained in the Trade Union Act - A panel of the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (SLRB) upheld a decision of its Executive Officer in which he ordered the Unions to provide particulars - The Unions applied for judicial review - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the SLRB was reasonable when it ordered the Unions to provide particulars as to the specific events or instances that gave rise to their belief that CLAC was company dominated - Both s. 18(a) of the Trade Union Act and the jurisprudence recognized the power of the SLRB to order particulars - If SLRB had not ordered those particulars, it would be deviating from the confines of natural justice owed to CLAC and the respondent employers - Further, the written decision to uphold the order for particulars gave the Unions adequate guidance as to what they were required to provide and warned them of the consequences for failing to do so - See paragraphs 93 to 98.

Labour Law - Topic 527

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Powers of board - To compel production of documents - The applicant Unions sought to have another union (CLAC) declared to be a "company dominated organization" (CDO) - The Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (SLRB) ordered the Unions to provide particulars - Summary dismissal motions were initiated by CLAC and the respondent employers on the basis that the CDO applications, together with the particulars provided, did not disclose an arguable case (Trade Union Act, s. 18(p)) - The Unions applied to the SLRB for orders requiring the production of "documents and things" (the D&T applications) (s. 18(b)) - The SLRB ruled that the D&T applications were premature - On judicial review, the Unions asserted that the SLRB should have heard the D&T applications before hearing the summary dismissal application; had that happened, they would have been able to provide further and better particulars - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench disagreed - The request for D&T amounted to an unjustifiable attempt to embark on a "fishing expedition" - The ordering of the decision making by the SLRB was reasonable and in keeping with previous decisions of the SLRB - Nor did the procedural choice violate the Unions' right to procedural fairness or natural justice - See paragraphs 138 to 147.

Labour Law - Topic 532.1

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Powers of board - To dismiss applications - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench referred to the body of labour relations board jurisprudence respecting how the "no arguable case" provision in the Trade Union Act (s. 18(p)) ought to be interpreted when assessing the sufficiency of "pleadings" filed with the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (SLRB) - "The following principles have emerged: (a) The onus is on the applicants to provide sufficient particulars which disclose a violation of the Act. ... (b) The SLRB, when examining an application, will not assess the strengths and weaknesses of the application/accusation; rather, it will determine whether the material, if presumed to be true, discloses a violation of the Act. ... This interpretation of the 'summary dismissal' provision is similar to the approach taken by courts when assessing whether a statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action" - See paragraphs 101 and 102.

Labour Law - Topic 532.1

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Powers of board - To dismiss applications - The respondent employers applied to the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (SLRB) to have the applicant Unions' "company dominated organization" (CDO) applications dismissed summarily on the basis that they did not make out an arguable case (Trade Union Act, s. 18(p)) - The focus of the proceeding was on the sufficiency of the CDO applications - A panel of the SLRB summarily dismissed the CDO applications - The Unions applied for judicial review - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench rejected the Unions' contention that the process breached the rules of natural justice and deprived them of their right to a fair hearing - The SLRB panel adopted a reasonable procedure to address the summary dismissal applications, which reflected proper considerations and which adequately identified the test for summary dismissals applied by other SLRB panels - The process was procedurally fair and afforded all parties the opportunity to fully argue their respective positions - See paragraphs 104 and 105.

Labour Law - Topic 532.1

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Powers of board - To dismiss applications - A panel of the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (SLRB) summarily dismissed the applicant Unions' "company dominated organization" applications on the basis that the content of those applications did not disclose an arguable case (Trade Union Act, s. 18(p)) - The parties were in agreement that Re Soles accurately set forth the summary dismissal test - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, however, stated that certain aspects of the two-part test, as formulated in Re Soles [2006] S.L.R.B.D. No. 26, were "misguided" - "Once the SLRB finds that an application does not 'establish an arguable case', is it necessary to go the additional step and decide whether it is an 'appropriate case to summarily dismiss the applicant's application without oral hearing' - or has that already been decided when determining the first prong?" - Also, Re Soles suggested that the material that must be assessed when deciding whether the application disclosed an "arguable case" is "... the application and/or written submission" - However, considering written submissions as part of the assessment process would lead to a commingling of "pleadings" with "arguments" that could cause confusion and uncertainty, and could lead to unfairness - See paragraphs 106 to 110.

Labour Law - Topic 532.1

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Powers of board - To dismiss applications - The respondent employers applied to the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (SLRB) to have the applicant Unions' "company dominated organization" (CDO) applications dismissed summarily on the basis that they did not make out an arguable case (Trade Union Act, s. 18(p)) - The focus of the proceeding was on the sufficiency of the CDO applications - The SLRB had ordered the Unions to provide particulars - A panel of the SLRB found that the CDO applications were flawed on their face (bare allegations; no supporting facts) - Two Unions did not file particulars - The SLRB summarily dismissed the unparticularized CDO applications - On judicial review, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that it was reasonable and correct for the SLRB to conclude that the hollow accusations with no factual assertions did not raise an arguable case and that summary dismissal was justified - See paragraphs 111 to 115.

Labour Law - Topic 532.1

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Powers of board - To dismiss applications - The applicant Unions sought to have another union (CLAC) declared to be a "company dominated organization" (CDO) - The respondent employers applied to the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (SLRB) to have the Unions' CDO applications dismissed summarily on the basis that they did not make out an arguable case (Trade Union Act, s. 18(p)) - The focus of the proceeding was on the sufficiency of the CDO applications - The SLRB had ordered the Unions to provide particulars - One set of particulars alleged that other employers in Canada had dominated CLAC, and that CLAC's "constitution, by-laws, history [and] collective agreements" were anti-union, anti-democratic, and susceptible to company domination - A panel of the SLRB determined that those particulars were not sufficient to save the CDO applications from summary dismissal - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the SLRB acted reasonably - The facts asserted within the particulars did not create a sufficient nexus between the "other employers in Canada", CLAC and a relationship of domination - Being anti-union and anti-democratic, even if true, was not the same as being company dominated - See paragraphs 116 to 124.

Labour Law - Topic 532.1

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Powers of board - To dismiss applications - The applicant Unions sought to have another union (CLAC) declared to be a "company dominated organization" (CDO) - The respondent employers applied to the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (SLRB) to have the Unions' CDO applications dismissed summarily on the basis that they did not make out an arguable case (Trade Union Act, s. 18(p)) - The focus of the proceeding was on the sufficiency of the CDO applications - The SLRB had ordered the Unions to provide particulars - One set of particulars alleged that CLAC worked closely with a number of anti-union or "open shop" employers' organizations - A panel of the SLRB found that those particulars did not save the CDO applications - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench found that the SLRB's decision that no "arguable" case had been made out, even with the particulars provided, was reasonable - "It is not for this Court, on a judicial review application such as this, to hear the summary dismissal application afresh as though this Court was the initial decision-maker" - See paragraphs 125 to 132.

Labour Law - Topic 532.1

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Powers of board - To dismiss applications - The applicant Unions sought to have another union (CLAC) declared to be a "company dominated organization" (CDO) - The respondent employers applied to the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (SLRB) to have the Unions' CDO applications dismissed summarily on the basis that they did not make out an arguable case (Trade Union Act, s. 18(p)) - A panel of the SLRB summarily dismissed the CDO applications - On judicial review, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench addressed the Unions' argument that no employer alleged to be dominating the union needed to be named, because it could be any employer - "[T]he debate about which employer needs to be allegedly dominating the subject Union is irrelevant to the issues here because, having named each of the Respondent Employers as the dominating company, the focus is whether there are sufficient factual underpinnings to support the allegation that the named employer ... dominated CLAC. ... [T]he unions did not allege that CLAC was dominated by any other company other than the five Respondent Employers. The problem with the applications is the lack of specificity not the analysis of the details provided." - See paragraphs 133 to 137.

Labour Law - Topic 576

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Judicial review - General - Standard of review - This was an application for judicial review respecting decisions rendered by the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (SLRB) - The parties disagreed on how the complaints ought to be characterized - Therefore, analysis of the standard of review was warranted - Some of the issues involved the SLRB interpreting or applying the Trade Union Act and its Regulations - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the SLRB's decision to order particulars involved the application of a provision in the Act and thus, "reasonableness" was the standard of review - Further, the Act contained a strong privative clause (s. 21), giving rise to a strong indication of review pursuant to the reasonableness standard - Also, where a tribunal had special expertise over the subject matter of its decision (such as a Labour Relations Board), deference should be given - "Therefore, if the SLRB's decisions are justified, transparent and intelligible throughout its decision-making process, and the decisions fall within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes, then this Court should not disturb its decisions" - See paragraphs 72 to 76.

Labour Law - Topic 576

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Judicial review - General - Standard of review - This was an application for judicial review respecting decisions rendered by the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (SLRB) - The parties disagreed on how the complaints ought to be characterized - Therefore, analysis of the standard of review was warranted - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench concluded that the issues dealing with natural justice and procedural fairness "must be assessed using a two-part review. First, this Court must determine what the duty of fairness requires, based on the Baker factors, using the correctness standard. Second, this Court must assess the SLRB's choice of procedure. So long as the duty of fairness requirements are met, this Court must give deference to the SLRB's procedural decisions." - See paragraphs 83, 150 and 151.

Labour Law - Topic 664

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Natural justice - Denial of - [See second Labour Law - Topic 532.1 ].

Labour Law - Topic 804

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Procedure - Hearing - General - The applicant Unions sought judicial review respecting two decisions rendered by the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (SLRB), that resulted in the summary dismissal of their "company dominated organization" (CDO) applications - The Unions contended that the SLRB erred by treating the CDO applications as separate and distinct applications rather than as part of the pending certification applications - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench found that, in this respect, the SLRB's decisions were both reasonable and correct - The CDO applications were separate and distinct stand-alone applications that were not part of the as yet to be heard certification applications - The provisions of the Trade Union Act made that conclusion obvious - See paragraphs 86 to 92.

Labour Law - Topic 804

Labour relation boards and judicial review - Procedure - Hearing - General - [See Labour Law - Topic 527 and second Labour Law - Topic 532.1 ].

Labour Law - Topic 4077

Unions - Certification - Union defined - What constitutes a trade union - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2266 ].

Cases Noticed:

S.G.E.U. v. Saskatchewan (Provincial Auditor) - see Provincial Auditor v. Saskatchewan Government Employees' Union and Labour Relations Board (Sask.).

Provincial Auditor v. Saskatchewan Government Employees' Union and Labour Relations Board (Sask.) (1986), 49 Sask.R. 163; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 684 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Revelstoke Pre-Mix v. Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers, Local 395 and Labour Relations Board (Sask.), [1977] 2 W.W.R. 39 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Hartwig v. Saskatoon (City) Police Association - see Stonechild, Re.

Stonechild, Re, [2007] 10 W.W.R. 689; 304 Sask.R. 1; 413 W.A.C. 1; 284 D.L.R.(4th) 268; 2007 SKCA 74, refd to. [para. 21].

Sun Electric, Re (1975) Ltd., [2002] S.L.R.B.D. No. 36 (Lab. Rel. Bd.), refd to. [para. 53].

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1985 and Graham Construction and Engineering Ltd., [1999] S.L.R.B.R. 20 (Lab. Rel. Bd.), refd to. [para. 55].

Service Employees' International Union, Local 333 v. Nipawin District Staff Nurses' Association et al., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 382, refd to. [para. 56].

Soles, Re, [2006] S.L.R.B.D. No. 26, refd to. [para. 62].

Wal-Mart Canada Corp., Re, [2008] S.L.R.B.D. No. 32 (Lab. Rel. Bd.), refd to. [para. 64].

Committee for Justice and Liberty Foundation et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115, refd to. [para. 68].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 69].

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 5506 v. Prairie South School Division No. 210 et al. (2010) 353 Sask.R. 235; 2010 SKQB 77, affd. (2011), 371 Sask.R. 224; 518 W.A.C. 224; 2011 SKCA 54, refd to. [para. 70].

Board of Education of Sun West School Division No. 207 v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 4802 et al., [2010] 8 W.W.R. 286; 347 Sask.R. 262; 2010 SKQB 1, refd to. [para. 70].

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 529 v. Saunders Electric Ltd. et al. (2010), 351 Sask.R. 250; 2010 SKQB 75, refd to. [para. 70].

Hartwig v. Commissioner of Inquiry into matters relating to the death of Neil Stonechild, Re - see Stonechild, Re.

Stonechild, Re, [2008] 9 W.W.R. 615; 310 Sask.R. 263; 423 W.A.C. 263; 2008 SKCA 81, refd to. [para. 71].

Ivanhoe Inc. et al. v. United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 500 et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 565; 272 N.R. 201; 2001 SCC 47, refd to. [para. 74].

Cardinal and Oswald v. Kent Institution (Director), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643; 63 N.R. 353, refd to. [para. 78].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 79].

Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jerôme-Lafontaine v. Lafontaine (Village) (2004), 323 N.R. 1; 2004 SCC 48, refd to. [para. 79].

VIA Rail Canada Inc. v. Canadian Transportation Agency et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 650; 360 N.R. 1; 2007 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 81].

Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al. (2007), 233 O.A.C. 14; 88 O.R.(3d) 361 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 82].

P.A. Bottlers Ltd. (c.o.b. P.A. Beverage Sales and Sascan Beverages), Re, [1997] S.L.R.B.D. No. 22 (Lab. Rel. Bd.), refd to. [para. 94].

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1325 v. Fraser Bros. Roofing Ltd., [1997] Alta. L.R.B.R. 541, refd to. [para. 97].

Graham Construction and Engineering Ltd., Re, [1999] S.L.R.B.D. No. 20 (Lab. Rel. Bd.), refd to. [para. 97].

Morin, Re, [2008] S.L.R.B.D. No. 50 (Lab. Rel. Bd.), refd to. [para. 101].

Blucher No. 343 (Rural Municipality), Re, [2008] S.L.R.B.D. No. 3 (Lab. Rel. Bd.), refd to. [para. 101].

Sagon v. Royal Bank of Canada et al. (1992), 105 Sask.R. 133; 32 W.A.C. 133 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 102].

Saskatchewan Federation of Labour et al. v. Saskatchewan (Attorney General) et al., [2009] 4 W.W.R. 691; 323 Sask.R. 115; 2009 SKQB 20, affd. (2010), 346 Sask.R. 252; 477 W.A.C. 252; 2010 SKCA 27, refd to. [para. 149].

Taylor and Western Guard Party v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892; 117 N.R. 191, refd to. [para. 156].

Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor - see Taylor and Western Guard Party v. Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Rothesay Residents Association Inc. v. Rothesay Heritage Preservation & Review Board et al. (2006), 299 N.B.R.(2d) 369; 778 A.P.R. 369; 269 D.L.R. (4th) 127; 2006 NBCA 61, refd to. [para. 156].

R. v. Walker (1968), 63 W.W.R.(N.S.) 381 (Alta. S.C.), refd to. [para. 159].

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; 151 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 159].

Lowe v. Landmark Transport Inc. et al. (2007), 310 F.T.R. 27; 2007 FC 217, refd to. [para. 160].

Sahota v. Scott et al. (2008), 328 Sask.R. 68; 2008 SKQB 512, refd to. [para. 160].

Statutes Noticed:

Trade Union Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. T-17, sect. 2(e) [para. 31]; sect. 18(a) [para. 94]; sect. 18(b) [para. 142]; sect. 18(p) [para. 99].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, D.J.M., and Evans, J.M., Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada, Looseleaf Ed. (2011), pp. 14-16 [para. 76]; 14-58 to 14-61 [para. 80].

Jones, D.P., and De Villars, A.S., Principles of Administrative Law (5th Ed. 2009), p. 448 [para. 156].

Counsel:

Drew S. Plaxton and Andrew S. Buchanan, for Saskatchewan Regional Council of Carpenters, Drywall, Millwrights and Allied Workers (The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1985, and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Millwrights Union, Local 1021), International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 529; and Local 01 Saskatchewan of the International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers (Local 01) and The International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers (BAC);

Larry W. Kowalchuk and Juliana K.J. Saxberg, for Saskatchewan Provincial Building Trades Council; Saskatchewan Joint Board, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union; and Saskatchewan Government and General Employees' Union;

No one appearing for the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board;

Richard F. Steele and David A. de Groot, for Construction Workers Union, Local 151;

Lawrence F. Seiferling, Q.C., and Angela D. Giroux, for Tercon Industrial Works Ltd. and Westwood Electric Ltd.;

Thomas W.R. Ross, for Canonbie Contracting Limited and Willbros Construction Services (Canada) L.P.;

Joseph H. Hunder and Cristina Wendel, for Pyramid Corporation;

No one appearing for Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1975.

This application for judicial review was heard before Popescul, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on October 13, 2011.