Ferreira v. Richmond (City) et al.,

• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Judge: Ryan, Saunders and Smith, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Citation: (2007), 238 B.C.A.C. 64 (CA),2007 BCCA 131
• Date: 01 December 2005

Ferreira v. Richmond (2007), 238 B.C.A.C. 64 (CA);

    393 W.A.C. 64

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.006

Jose Mario Ferreira (respondent/plaintiff) v. City of Richmond, Chris Boyce, Ken Fawns, Dennis Minns, Murray Sellars and Art Trinidad (appellants/defendants)

(CA032524)

Jose Mario Ferreira (respondent/plaintiff) v. City of Richmond (appellant/defendant) and Chris Boyce, Ken Fawns, Dennis Minns, Murray Sellars and Art Trinidad (respondents/defendants)

(CA032526; 2007 BCCA 131)

Indexed As: Ferreira v. Richmond (City) et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Ryan, Saunders and Smith, JJ.A.

February 28, 2007.

Summary:

The plaintiff, a long term unionized employee of the City of Richmond, issued a statement of claim, alleging that several city employees harassed him to the point of personal injury and that the city did nothing about it. The city and the employees (the defendants) sought to have the claim struck, arguing that the court was without jurisdiction to hear the case and that it should be heard by a labour arbitrator pursuant to the collective agreement.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported [2004] B.C.T.C. 1600, dismissed the application to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim. The defendants appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the dispute fell within the ambit of the collective agreement and the plaintiff's claim should have been struck by the chambers judge.

Labour Law - Topic 6906

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Civil action - Jurisdiction - The plaintiff, a long term unionized employee of the City of Richmond, claimed that he was harassed by fellow employees after he voiced concerns about irregular practices like the use of city credit cards by employees for personal expenses and improper use of sick leave and overtime, etc. - The city and the employees (the defendants) sought to have the plaintiff's claim struck, for want of jurisdiction claiming that this matter should be heard by a labour arbitrator pursuant to the collective agreement - The chambers judge refused the application to strike - The defendants appealed - The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the plaintiff's claim should have been struck by the chambers judge - The dispute fell within the ambit of the collective agreement, notwithstanding the lack of "whistleblower protection" in the agreement - In this case the dispute fell inferentially within the ambit of the collective agreement where all the conduct directed toward the plaintiff could be dealt with as a human rights violation - Human rights legislation was inferentially incorporated into every collective agreement in British Columbia - The fact that the alleged harassment of the plaintiff was motivated by his "whistleblowing" activity was immaterial to a human rights complaint.

Labour Law - Topic 7041.3

Industrial Relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - Arbitration - Jurisdiction or powers of arbitrator or board - Respecting statutory rights (incl. human rights) - [See Labour Law - Topic 6906 ].

Labour Law - Topic 7201

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - Civil action - When available - [See Labour Law - Topic 6906 ].

Labour Law - Topic 7205

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - Civil action - Jurisdiction - [See Labour Law - Topic 6906 ].

Labour Law - Topic 7209

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - Civil action - For Charter or human rights legislation relief - [See Labour Law - Topic 6906 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9076

Public service labour relations - Remedies - Civil action - When available - [See Labour Law - Topic 6906 ].

Cases Noticed:

Pleau v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1999), 181 N.S.R.(2d) 356; 560 A.P.R. 356; 182 D.L.R.(4th) 373; 1999 NSCA 159, refd to. [paras. 17, 82].

Fording Coal Ltd. v. United Steelworkers of America, Local 7884 et al. (1999), 118 B.C.A.C. 42; 192 W.A.C. 42; 65 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1; 1999 BCCA 38, refd to. [para. 20].

Olsen v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2003), 181 B.C.A.C. 219; 298 W.A.C. 219; 13 B.C.L.R.(4th) 133; 226 D.L.R.(4th) 283; 2003 BCCA 209, refd to. [paras. 20, 39, 82].

Ali v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. et al. (2005), 213 B.C.A.C. 118; 352 W.A.C. 118; 41 B.C.L.R.(4th) 199; 2005 BCCA 294, refd to. [para. 25].

Vaughan v. Canada, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 146; 331 N.R. 64; 2005 SCC 11, refd to. [paras. 26, 82].

Sulz v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2007), 234 B.C.A.C. 88; 387 W.A.C. 88; 2006 BCCA 582, refd to. [para. 26].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 30].

Regina Police Association Inc. and Shotton v. Board of Police Commissioners of Regina, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 360; 251 N.R. 16; 189 Sask.R. 23; 216 W.A.C. 23, refd to. [paras. 31, 66].

Social Services Administration Board (Parry Sound District) v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 324, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 157; 308 N.R. 271; 177 O.A.C. 235; 2003 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 36].

Guenette et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2002), 162 O.A.C. 371; 60 O.R.(3d) 601; 216 D.L.R.(4th) 410 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 39, 82].

New Brunswick v. O'Leary, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 967; 183 N.R. 229; 163 N.B.R.(2d) 97; 419 A.P.R. 97; 125 D.L.R.(4th) 609, refd to. [para. 42].

Piko v. Hudson's Bay Co. (1998), 116 O.A.C. 92; 41 O.R.(3d) 729; 167 D.L.R.(4th) 479 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Phillips v. Harrison, [2001] 3 W.W.R. 589; 153 Man.R.(2d) 1; 238 W.A.C. 1; 196 D.L.R.(4th) 69; 2000 MBCA 150, refd to. [para. 48].

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (Que.) v. Quebec (Attorney General) et al., [2004] 2 S.C.R. 185; 321 N.R. 290; 240 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 2004 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 771, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 425; 341 N.R. 357; 275 Sask.R. 1; 365 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 70, refd to. [para. 58].

Initial Services Ltd. v. Putterill, [1967] 3 All E.R. 145 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Fraser v. Public Service Staff Relations Board, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 455; 63 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 58].

Read v. Canada (Attorney General) (2005), 274 F.T.R. 203; 2005 FC 798, refd to. [para. 58].

Gartside v. Outram (1857), 26 L.J. Ch. 113, refd to. [para. 59].

Adams v. Cusack et al. (2006), 242 N.S.R.(2d) 66; 770 A.P.R. 66 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

Garon (Isidore) ltée v. Syndicat du bois ouvré de la région de Québec inc. (C.S.D.) et al., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 27; 344 N.R. 1; 2006 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 67].

Board of School Trustees of School District No. 44 (North Vancouver) v. Jubran et al. (2005), 211 B.C.A.C. 161; 349 W.A.C. 161; 253 D.L.R.(4th) 294; 39 B.C.L.R.(4th) 153; 2005 BCCA 201, refd to. [para. 71].

Toronto Transit Commission and Amalgamated Transit Union, Re (2004), 132 L.A.C.(4th) 225 (Arb.), refd to. [para. 80].

Hemmings v. University of Saskatchewan et al. (2002), 223 Sask.R. 295; 277 W.A.C. 295; 216 D.L.R.(4th) 343; 2002 SKCA 96, refd to. [para. 80].

Statutes Noticed:

Labour Relations Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 244, sect. 82(1), sect. 82(2), sect. 84(1), sect. 84(2), sect. 84(3), sect. 89, sect. 101 [para. 24].

Rules of Court (B.C.), Supreme Court Rules, rule 14(6) [para. 23].

Counsel:

B. Laughton, Q.C., for Chris Boyce, Ken Fawns, Dennis Minns, Murray Sellars and Art Trinidad;

N. Mitha, for the City of Richmond;

L. Smeets, for Jose Mario Ferreira.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 30 and December 1, 2005, before Ryan, Saunders and Smith, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The judgment of the court was delivered on February 28, 2007, including the following opinions:

Ryan, J.A. (Smith, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 77;

Saunders, J.A., concurring reasons - see paragraphs 78 to 84.