Collier v. Moncton Kinsmen House Inc. et al., 2002 NBQB 96

• Judge: Rideout, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: March 07, 2002
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: 2002 NBQB 96;[2002] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 24 (TD)

Collier v. Kinsmen House, [2002] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 24 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[English language version only]

[Version en langue anglaise seulement]

Temp. Cite: [2002] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) TBEd. MR.021

Renvoi temp.: [2002] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) TBEd. MR.021

Joette Collier (plaintiff) v. Moncton Kinsmen House Inc. and Bonnie Findlay (defendants)

(M/C/1003/99; 2002 NBQB 96)

Indexed As: Collier v. Moncton Kinsmen House Inc. et al.

Répertorié: Collier v. Moncton Kinsmen House Inc. et al.

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Moncton

Rideout, J.

March 22, 2002.

Summary:

Résumé:

An employee sued her former employer for wrongful dismissal.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, dismissed the action and provisionally assessed damages.

Estoppel - Topic 380

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Matters in issue - In a wrongful dis­missal action the issue arose as to whether the employee had quit - In argu­ment, the employee claimed issue estoppel on the basis that a Board of Ref­erees had allowed her claim for employ­ment insur­ance bene­fits - Neither a copy of the evidence before the board or of the board's decision was produced - The New Bruns­wick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Divi­sion, held that the employee was precluded from raising issue estoppel where it was not pleaded - The fact that the employee's pre-trial brief raised the issue was insuffi­cient to get around the necessity of plead­ing - Further, on the basis of the evidence, the court could not determine if the ques­tion before the Board was fundamental to the issue before the court - The Board's decision not being available was fatal - Issue estoppel only applied in the clearest of circumstances - This was not such a case - See paragraphs 19 to 34.

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, stated that mutuality (i.e., only the parties in the first action could benefit or take advantage of that determi­nation) no longer appeared to be a require­ment for the application of issue estoppel - See paragraph 21.

Estoppel - Topic 388

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Decisions of administrative tribunals - [See Estoppel - Topic 380 ].

Estoppel - Topic 389

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Collateral issues decided in prior pro­ceedings - [See Estoppel - Topic 380 ].

Estoppel - Topic 475

Practice - Pleading - Necessity for - [See Estoppel - Topic 380 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 8000

Dismissal without cause - Notice of dis­missal - What constitutes reasonable notice - In the fall of 1988, Collier began work­ing for Kinsmen House, a chari­table orga­nization which operated a senior citi­zen facility - She eventually attained the posi­tion of assistant supervisor - In November 1998, her employment ended - Collier sued for wrongful dismissal - The New Bruns­wick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Divi­sion, dismissed the action, but provisionally assessed damages, concluding that she was entitled to 12 months' salary in lieu of notice - See paragraph 47.

Préclusion - Cote 380

Préclusion par chose jugée - Exception de la chose jugée opposée aux procédures ultérieures - Questions en litige - [Voir Estoppel - Topic 380 ].

Préclusion - Cote 386

Préclusion par chose jugée - Exception de la chose jugée opposée aux procédures ultérieures - Questions tranchées dans des procédures antérieures - [Voir Estoppel - Topic 386 ].

Préclusion - Cote 388

Préclusion par chose jugée - Exception de la chose jugée opposée aux procédures ultérieures - Décisions de tribunaux administratifs - [Voir Estoppel - Topic 388 ].

Préclusion - Cote 389

Préclusion par chose jugée - Exception de la chose jugée opposée aux procédures ultérieures - Questions incidentes tranchées dans des procédures antérieures - [Voir Estoppel - Topic 389 ].

Préclusion - Cote 475

Procédure - Obligation de plaider la pré­clu­sion - [Voir Estoppel - Topic 475 ].

Employeurs et employés - Cote 8000

Congédiement non motivé - Avis de con­gé­diement - Préavis raisonnable, éléments constitutifs - [Voir Master and Servant - Topic 8000 ].

Cases Noticed:

Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung v. Rayner & Keeler Ltd. (No. 2), [1966] 2 All E.R. 536 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 22].

Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. et al (1998), 116 O.A.C. 225 (C.A.), revd. (2001), 227 N.R. 1; 149 O.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

Irving Oil Ltd. v. Petro-Canada Inc. and Dellwo et al. (1987), 83 N.B.R.(2d) 416; 212 A.P.R. 416 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 22].

Comeau v. Anderson (1977), 18 N.B.R.(2d) 180; 26 A.P.R. 180 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Angle v. Minister of National Revenue (1974), 2 N.R. 397; 47 D.L.R.(3d) 544 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

Moncton (City) v. Aprile Contracting Ltd. (1980), 29 N.B.R.(2d) 631; 66 A.P.R. 631 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Comeau et al. v. Breau et al. (1994), 145 N.B.R.(2d) 329; 372 A.P.R. 329 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Deagle v. Shean Co-operative Ltd. (1996), 156 N.S.R.(2d) 219; 461 A.P.R. 219; 141 D.L.R.(4th) 402 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sopinka, Lederman and Bryant, The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed.), p. 1070, s. 19.54 [para. 33].

Walson, Bryant, Hutchinson, Mosher, Penos and Walker, The Civil Litigation Process Cases and Material (5th Ed. 1999), p. 509 [para. 20].

Williston and Rolls, The Law of Civil Procedure, pp. 703, 704 [para. 23].

Counsel:

Brian Edward Maude, on behalf of the plaintiff, Joette Collier;

Scott Fowler, on behalf of the defendants, Moncton Kinsmen House Inc. and Bonnie Findlay.

Rideout, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Moncton, heard this action on March 7, 2002, and delivered the following judgment on March 22, 2002.