Clowes v. New Brunswick et al., (2014) 426 N.B.R.(2d) 252 (TD)
|Court:||Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick|
|Case Date:||June 26, 2014|
|Citations:||(2014), 426 N.B.R.(2d) 252 (TD);2014 NBQB 223|
Clowes v. N.B. (2014), 426 N.B.R.(2d) 252 (TD);
426 R.N.-B.(2e) 252; 1110 A.P.R. 252
MLB headnote and full text
Sommaire et texte intégral
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
Temp. Cite:  N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.011
Renvoi temp.:  N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.011
Jamie Lynn Clowes (plaintiff/respondent) v. Her Majesty the Queen, in Right of the Province of New Brunswick, Office of the Attorney General, Department of Education, Anglophone West School District, David McTimoney, Dianne Lunn, Correen Barrett-Smith and Andrea MacInnis (defendants/applicants)
(W/C/66/13; 2014 NBQB 223; 2014 NBBR 223)
Indexed As: Clowes v. New Brunswick et al.
Répertorié: Clowes v. New Brunswick et al.
New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench
Judicial District of Woodstock
September 30, 2014.
The plaintiff was suspended from her position as a public school teacher for two days following a complaint under the school district's Policy for the Protection of Students. The plaintiff sued the province and others for damages for loss of reputation. The defendants moved to dismiss the action.
The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, granted the motion.
Education - Topic 6401
Teachers - Discipline of - General - [See Labour Law - Topic 9655 ].
Labour Law - Topic 9076
Public service labour relations - Remedies - Civil action - When available - [See Labour Law - Topic 9655 ].
Labour Law - Topic 9655
Public service labour relations - Collective agreement - Civil action - Jurisdiction - The plaintiff was suspended from her position as a public school teacher for two days following a complaint under the school district's Policy for the Protection of Students - The plaintiff sued the province and others for damages for loss of reputation - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the action - The plaintiff was a unionized employee who had a grievance and adjudication process available to her under s. 92 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act - While aspects of the defendants' alleged conduct arguably extended beyond the collective agreement's scope, the dispute's essential character stemmed from the employment relationship and the way the complaint was investigated, which were governed by the collective agreement - The exclusive jurisdiction model applied - The plaintiff was unable to prosecute her civil action as framed - Nor did the plaintiff have a right to a civil action under s. 5.6.1. of the policy, which stated, "Disciplinary action taken by the school system does not preclude the respondent from pursuing civil action" - The discipline or dismissal of employees was governed by the collective agreement - The policy did not allow for a civil action that was otherwise precluded by the collective agreement, the statutory regime and the common law - See paragraphs 16 to 37.
Practice - Topic 5359.1
Dismissal of action - Grounds - General and want of prosecution - Lack of jurisdiction - [See Labour Law - Topic 9655 ].
Droit du travail - Cote 9076
Relations de travail dans la fonction publique - Recours - Possibilité d'intenter une poursuite civile - [Voir Labour Law - Topic 9076 ].
Droit du travail - Cote 9655
Relations de travail dans les services publique - Convention collective - Poursuite civile - Compétence - [Voir Labour Law - Topic 9655 ].
Éducation - Cote 6401
Enseignants - Mesure disciplinaires - Généralités - [Voir Education - Topic 6401 ].
Procédure - Cote 5359.1
Rejet de l'action - Motifs - Généralités et défaut de procéder - Manque de compétence - [Voir Practice - Topic 5359.1 ].
St. Anne-Nackawic Pulp & Paper Co. v. Canadian Paper Workers Union, Local 219 (1986), 68 N.R. 112; 73 N.B.R.(2d) 236; 184 A.P.R. 236 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 14].
Smith v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2007), 316 N.B.R.(2d) 180; 816 A.P.R. 180 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].
Praskey v. Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board et al. (1994), 95 C.L.L.C. 141.046 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 22].
Egerton v. Finucan,  O.J. 1653 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 22].
Weber v. Ontario Hydro,  2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 22].
Phillips v. Harrison (2000), 153 Man.R.(2d) 1; 238 W.A.C. 1; 196 D.L.R.(4th) 69; 2000 MBCA 150, dist. [para. 28].
James H. McCue, for the plaintiff;
Keith Mullin, for the defendants.
This motion was heard on June 26, 2014, by DeWare, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Woodstock, who delivered the following decision on September 30, 2014.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP