Cohnstaedt v. University of Regina, (1986) 51 Sask.R. 259 (CA)

• Judge: Bayda, C.J.S., Tallis and Cameron, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: November 24, 1986
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1986), 51 Sask.R. 259 (CA)

Cohnstaedt v. Regina Univ. (1986), 51 Sask.R. 259 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Cohnstaedt v. University of Regina

(No. 7853)

Indexed As: Cohnstaedt v. University of Regina

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Bayda, C.J.S., Tallis and Cameron, JJ.A.

November 24, 1986.

Summary:

A tenured university professor was dismissed from his employment. The professor sued the university for damages. The action was settled before trial by an agreement. Under the agreement the professor was to continue performing such duties as were assigned to him by the Deans and his work during this time was to be assessed by them; if the professor's performance was judged to be inadequate, then under the agreement he was obliged to take an early retirement. The Deans' assessment proved unsatisfactory and the university sought to enforce the retirement clause. The professor sued for a declaration that his termination was invalid and claimed salary and other damages.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported in 45 Sask.R. 232, dismissed the action. The professor appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, in a decision reported in 45 Sask.R. 197, allowed the appeal and awarded the professor damages. Hall, J.A., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal. The university applied to the Court of Appeal under s. 38 of the Supreme Court Act for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, Bayda, C.J.S., dissenting, refused leave to appeal.

Practice - Topic 9090

Appeals - Supreme Court of Canada - Leave to appeal by a provincial court of appeal - An unsuccessful defendant applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada - The issues in the case involved contracts and administrative law - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal refused leave, because the issues were not of obvious or demonstrable national interest, and because it would be inappropriate for the Court of Appeal to grant leave while a motion for the same relief was pending before the Supreme Court of Canada.

Cases Noticed:

Nicholson v. Haldimand Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners and Police and Attorney General of Ontario, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311; 23 N.R. 410, refd to. [para. 5].

Kane v. Board of Governors of the University of British Columbia, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1105; 31 N.R. 214, refd to. [para. 5].

C. v. K. et ux (1960), 31 W.W.R.(N.S.) 45, refd to. [para. 9].

Hepting v. Schaaf (1963), 41 W.W.R.(N.S.) 319, refd to. [para. 9].

Hanson v. Selinger and Regina Board of Police Commissioners, [1980] 4 W.W.R. 673; 3 Sask.R. 274, refd to. [para. 9].

Church of Scientology of California v. Canadian Mental Health Association (Sask. Div.) and Borden (1980), 2 Sask.R. 379, refd to. [paras. 9, 21].

Campbell v. East-West Packers (1969) Ltd. (1982), 20 Man.R.(2d) 146, refd to. [para. 23].

Statutes Noticed:

Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. S-19, sect. 38 [paras. 1-2, 7, 13, 15-16, 20, 23, 27]; sect. 41(1) [paras. 16, 23]; sect. 64(1) [paras. 15-16]; sect. 65(1) [paras. 15-16].

Counsel:

A. John Beke, Q.C., for the respondent;

G.J. Kuski, Q.C., and Philip J. Gallet, for the applicant.

This application was heard before Bayda, C.J.S., Tallis and Cameron, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered on November 24, 1986, when the following opinions were filed:

Bayda, C.J.S., dissenting - see paragraphs 1 to 18;

Tallis, J.A. - see paragraphs 19 to 24;

Cameron, J.A. - see paragraphs 25 to 36.