Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1999 v. Lakeridge Health Corp. et al., 2011 ONSC 2804

• Judge: Lederer, J.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: April 19, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: 2011 ONSC 2804;(2011), 278 O.A.C. 161 (DC)

CUPE v. Lakeridge Health (2011), 278 O.A.C. 161 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] O.A.C. TBEd. MY.039

Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 1999 (applicant) v. Lakeridge Health Corporation and The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal (respondents)

(513/10; 2011 ONSC 2804)

Indexed As: Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1999 v. Lakeridge Health Corp. et al.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Lederer, J.

May 20, 2011.

Summary:

The Equal Pay Coalition sought an order allowing it to intervene in a judicial review of a decision of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the motion.

Administrative Law - Topic 3351

Judicial review - General - Practice - Intervenors - General - A union complained that an employer had failed to "establish and maintain compensation practices that provided for pay equity" and thus was in violation of the Pay Equity Act - In dismissing the union's application, the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal declined to interpret and apply the Human Rights Code - The Equal Pay Coalition sought intervenor status as a friend of the court (amicus curiae) - The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the motion - The Tribunal had held that the Act was a "comprehensive scheme for the redressing of systemic gender discrimination in compensation", but the Supreme Court of Canada had held that a tribunal could only decline to address a human rights issue if it had been granted authority to decline this jurisdiction - The relationship of the Act and the Code was a matter of importance which extended beyond the interests of the parties - The Coalition had a broader perspective, driven by the fact that pay equity was its principal concern and by the variety of members or partners that participated - The court placed limits on the Coalition's participation that would mitigate against any prejudice that might be caused by its intervention.

Practice - Topic 687

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Intervenors - Amicus curiae - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3351 ].

Cases Noticed:

Peel (Regional Municipality) et al. v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Co. of Canada Ltd. et al. (1990), 40 O.A.C. 117; 74 O.R.(2d) 164 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6, footnote 4].

Tranchemontagne v. Disability Support Program (Ont.) et al., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 513; 347 N.R. 144; 210 O.A.C. 267, refd to. [para. 8, footnote 5].

Bedford et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2011] O.A.C. Uned. 183 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13, footnote 9].

Childs v. Desormeaux et al. (2003), 177 O.A.C. 183; 67 O.R.(3d) 385; 2003 CanLII 47870 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14, footnote 10].

Blue Mountain Resorts Ltd. v. DenBok et al., [2011] O.A.C. Uned. 218; 2011 ONSC 1909 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 14, footnote 10].

Counsel:

Mary Cornish, for the applicant;

Michael A. Hines, for the respondent, Lakeridge Health Corporation;

Leonard Marvy, for the respondent, Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal;

Fay Faraday, for the proposed intervenor, Equal Pay Coalition (moving party).

This motion was heard on April 19, 2011, by Lederer, J., of the Ontario Divisional Court, who delivered the following decision on May 20, 2011.