Ellis-Don Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al., 2001 SCC 4

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 26, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2001 SCC 4;(2001), 265 N.R. 2 (SCC);[2001] SCJ No 5 (QL);DTE 2001T-138;265 NR 2;JE 2001-315;[2001] 1 SCR 221;140 OAC 201;194 DLR (4th) 385;52 OR (3d) 160;[2001] ACS no 5;26 Admin LR (3d) 171;AZ-50082587

Ellis-Don Ltd. v. LRB (2001), 265 N.R. 2 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2001] N.R. TBEd. JA.043

Ellis-Don Limited (appellant) v. The Ontario Labour Relations Board and The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 894 (respondents)

(26709; 2001 SCC 4)

Indexed As: Ellis-Don Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.

January 26, 2001.

Summary:

A union local filed a grievance, alleging that a contractor hired a non-union electrical subcontractor in violation of the provincial agreement between the electrical contractors' association and the union. The Ontario Labour Relations Board upheld the griev­ance. The contractor applied for judicial review to quash the Board's decision.

The Ontario Divisional Court, in a judg­ment reported 89 O.A.C. 45, dismissed the application. The contractor appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a judg­ment reported 108 O.A.C. 301, dismissed the appeal. The contractor appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Binnie and Major, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 487

The hearing and decision - The tribunal - Attendance - "He who decides must hear" -[See first Labour Law - Topic 830 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 545

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Members of tribunal entitled to participate in the decision - [See first Labour Law - Topic 830 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2152

Natural justice - Administrative decisions or findings - Participation by ineligible official in the decision - What constitutes -[See first Labour Law - Topic 830 ].

Labour Law - Topic 830

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Procedure - Decision - General - The Supreme Court of Canada recog­nized the legitimacy of institutional con­sultations to ensure consistency between decisions of different adjudicators or panels, subject to the following basic prin­ciples to ensure compliance with the rules of natural jus­tice: "first, the consultation proceeding could not be imposed by a superior level of authority within the ad­ministrative hierarchy, but could be requested only by the adjudicators them­selves. Second, the consultation had to be limited to questions of policy and law. The members of the organization who had not heard the evi­dence could not be allowed to re-assess it. The consultation had to pro­ceed on the basis of the facts as stated by the members who had actually heard the evidence. Finally, even on questions of law and policy, the decision-makers had to remain free to take whatever decision they deemed right in their conscience and un­derstanding of the facts and the law, and not be com­pelled to adopt the views expressed by other members of the admin­istrative tribu­nal. Provided these rules were respected, institutional consultation would not create a reasonable apprehension of bias or lack of independence. ... The mere fact that issues already litigated between the parties were to be discussed again by the full Board would not amount to a breach of the audi alteram partem rule. Provided these rules were complied with, the adjudicators retained the right to change their minds and to modify a first draft of a decision. Such changes would not create a presump­tion that something improper had occurred during the consul­tation process. In the absence of other evidence to the contrary, the presumption of regularity of adminis­trative procedures would apply." - See para­graphs 26 to 33.

Labour Law - Topic 830

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Procedure - Decision - General - A union grieved that a contractor violated the pro­vincial agreement between the electrical contractors' association and the union - The contractor submitted that it was not bound by the provincial agreement, be­cause the union had abandoned its rights - The hearing panel's draft decision con­cluded that the union aban­doned its rights, but the panel requested a full Board meet­ing to consider the decision - Following that meeting, the panel changed the draft decision and con­cluded that the union had not aban­doned its rights - The Ontario Divi­sional Court (affirmed by the Court of Appeal) held that the post-hearing pro­cedure did not violate the rules of natural justice - The question of abandonment in which the full board par­ticipated was a policy issue and not an issue of fact - Discussion before the full Board was limited to the policy implica­tions of the draft decision, which was permissible - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the decision - There was no evidence of tam­pering with the panel's decision (just spec­ulation) - The decision change con­cerned a matter of law and policy (i.e., legal consequences following from accepted facts) - See paragraphs 34 to 58.

Cases Noticed:

Consolidated-Bathurst Packaging Ltd. v. International Woodworkers of America, Local 2-69 and Labour Relations Board (Ont.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 282; 105 N.R. 161; 38 O.A.C. 321, appld. [para. 1].

Khan v. College of Physicians and Sur­geons (Ont.) (1992), 57 O.A.C. 115; 94 D.L.R.(4th) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Tremblay v. Commission des affaires sociales et autres, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 952; 136 N.R. 5; 47 Q.A.C. 169, refd to. [para. 23].

Domtar Inc. v. Commission d'appel en matière de lésions professionelles et autres, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 756; 154 N.R. 104; 55 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 28].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 40].

Lorne's Electric, Re, [1987] O.L.R.B. Rep. 1405 (Lab. Rel. Bd), refd to. [para. 42].

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. 48].

R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 623; 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79, refd to. [para. 48].

Kane v. Board of Governors of the Uni­versity of British Columbia, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1105; 31 N.R. 214, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Jolivet (D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 751; 254 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 73].

Marvell Jewellery Ltd., Re, [1975] O.L.R.B. Rep. 733 (Lab. Rel. Bd.), refd to. [para. 84].

Accomodex Franchise Management Inc., Re, [1993] O.L.R.B. Rep. 281 (Lab. Rel. Bd.), refd to. [para. 84].

Reusse (R.) Co., Re, [1988] O.L.R.B. Rep. 523 (Lab. Rel. Bd.), refd to. [para. 85].

Vieczorek et al. v. Piersma et al. (1987), 18 O.A.C. 308; 36 D.L.R.(4th) 136 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 88].

Service Employees' International Union, Local 333 v. Nipawin District Staff Nurses' Association et al., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 382, refd to. [para. 114].

Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières v. Syndicat des employés professionnels de l'Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 471; 148 N.R. 209; 53 Q.A.C. 171, refd to. [para. 114].

Metropolitan Life v. Union of Operating Engineers, [1970] S.C.R. 425, refd to. [para. 114].

Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Disciplin­ary Board, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 602; 30 N.R. 119, refd to. [para. 114].

Statutes Noticed:

Labour Relations Act, S.O. 1995, c. 1, sect. 114(1) [paras. 16, 113]; sect. 116 [para. 113]; sect. 117 [paras. 16, 95].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Adams, George W., Canadian Labour Law (2nd Ed.) (loose-leaf) (May 2000 update), p. 4-6, para. 4.100 [para. 114].

Brown, Donald J.M., and Evans, John M., Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada (loose-leaf) (July 2000), release 2-2000, vol. 2, pp. 14-14, 14-15, para. 14:2300 [para. 65].

Hawkins, R.E., Behind Closed Doors II: The Operational Problem - Deliberative Secrecy, Statutory Immunity and Testi­monial Privilege (1996), 10 C.J.A.L.P. 39, p. 40 [para. 97].

Janisch, H.N., Consistency, Rule-Making and Consolidated Bathurst (1991), 16 Queen's L.J. 95, p. 104 [para. 83].

Lemieux, Denis, L'équilibre nécessaire entre la cohérence institutionnelle et l'indé­pendance des membres d'un tribu­nal administratif: Tremblay c. Québec (Com­mission des affaires sociales) (1992), 71 Can. Bar Rev. 734, generally [para. 54].

Mullan, David J., Policing the Consoli­dated-Bathurst Limits - Of Whistle­blowers and Other Assorted Characters (1993), 10 Admin. L.R.(2d) 241, p. 242 [para. 101].

Sack, Jeffrey, Mitchell, C. Michael, and Price, Sandy, Ontario Labour Relations Board and Practice (3rd Ed.) (loose-leaf) (August 2000, release 14), vol. 1, p. 3.121 [para. 84].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), p. 297 [para. 73].

Wade, William, and Forsyth, Christopher, Administrative Law (7th Ed. 1994), p. 334 [para. 108].

Counsel:

Earl A. Cherniak, Q.C., and Kirk F. Stevens, for the appellant;

Sheila R. Block and Andrew E. Bernstein, for the respondent, Ontario Labour Rela­tions Board;

Alan M. Minsky, Q.C., and Susan Philpott, for the respondent, In­ternational Brother­hood of Electrical Workers, Local 894.

Solicitors of Record:

Lerner & Associates, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Tory Tory Deslauriers & Binnington, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, Ontario Labour Relations Board;

Koskie Minsky, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, In­ternational Brother­hood of Electrical Workers, Local 894.

This appeal was heard on February 15, 2000, before McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Basta­rache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On January 26, 2001, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

LeBel, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Bastarache and Arbour, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 58;

Binnie, J. (Major, J., concurring), dis­senting - see paragraphs 59 to 115.