Future Inns Canada Inc. v. Labour Relations Board (N.S.) et al., (1999) 204 N.S.R.(2d) 63 (CA)

• Judge: Pugsley, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: February 18, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (1999), 204 N.S.R.(2d) 63 (CA)

Future Inns Can. Inc. v. LRB (1999), 204 N.S.R.(2d) 63 (CA);

 639 A.P.R. 63

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.034

Labour Relations Board (Nova Scotia), Peter Darby, Bruce Archibald, Leo MacKay, Sandra Whitehead, Paula Wedge and Dirkje Johnson (appellants) v. Future Inns Canada Inc. (respondent) and Nova Scotia Federation of Labour (applicant/intervenor)

(CA 152113; CA 152110)

Indexed As: Future Inns Canada Inc. v. Labour Relations Board (N.S.) et al.

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Pugsley, J.A.

March 3, 1999.

Summary:

Following the settlement of litigation based on allegations of unfair labour practices, an employer began an action against the Labour Relations Board chairman and members, al­leging malice and bad faith. The chairman and members applied under rule 14.25 to strike the statement of claim.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a de­cision not reported in this series of reports, dismissed the application to strike. The chairman and members appealed. The Nova Scotia Federation of Labour applied for an extension of time to apply for leave to inter­vene.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, per Pugsley, J.A., allowed the application and granted the Federation of Labour intervenor status.

Editor's note: The Nova Scotia Court of Ap­peal, in a decision reported at 179 N.S.R.(2d) 213; 553 A.P.R. 213, struck out the statement of claim against the members of the Board other than the chairman.

Practice - Topic 685

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Intervenors - On appeal - Following the settlement of litigation based on allegations of unfair labour practices, an employer began an action against the Labour Re­lations Board chairman and members, alleging malice and bad faith - The chair­man and members applied under rule 14.25 to strike the statement of claim - The motions judge declined to strike - The chairman and members appealed the de­cision on the ground, inter alia, that the motions judge erred by not striking out the statement of claim because the Board and its members were protected by the prin­ciple of immunity - The Federation of Labour sought intervenor status - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, per Pugsley, J.A., granted the Federation intervenor status - The interven­tion would not delay the proceedings, would not be prejudicial to the parties and would not widen the is­sues - The Feder­ation could bring a per­spective to the court that was different from that of the present parties and would be useful - Also, the issue on which the Federation sought intervention was not case specific, but was one that was likely to affect the state of the law.

Cases Noticed:

Labour Relations Board (N.S.) v. Digby Municipal School Board et al. (1982), 52 N.S.R.(2d) 181; 106 A.P.R. 181 (C.A.) affd. (1983), 49 N.R. 107; 60 N.S.R.(2d) 369; 128 A.P.R. 369 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

Arrow Construction Products Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) (1996), 148 N.S.R.(2d) 392; 429 A.P.R. 392 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Nova Scotia v. Beaver (1984), 66 N.S.R.(2d) 419; 152 A.P.R. 419 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Halifax Flying Club v. Maritime Builders Ltd. (1973), 5 N.S.R.(2d) 364, refd to. [para. 15].

MacKeigan, J.A., et al. v. Royal Commis­sion (Marshall Inquiry) (1988), 86 N.S.R.(2d) 181; 218 A.P.R. 181 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

MacKeigan et al. v. Hickman - see MacKeigan, J.A., et al. v. Royal Com­mission (Marshall Inquiry).

Borowski v. Canada (Minister of Justice) et al. (1983), 23 Sask.R. 259; 144 D.L.R.(3d) 657 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 27].

Mannion (No. 2), Re (1983), 44 O.R.(2d) 37 (C.A.), dist. [para. 27].

Clark v. Canada (Attorney General) (1977), 81 D.L.R.(3d) 33 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Regan (G.A.) (1999), 174 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 532 A.P.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Statutes Noticed:

Civil Procedure Rules (N.S.), rule 62.33 [para. 5].

Rules of Court (N.S.) - see Civil Procedure Rules (N.S.).

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bryden, Public Intervention in the Courts (1987), 66 Can. Bar Rev. 490, pp. 494 [para. 15]; 495 [para. 23]; 496 [para. 19].

Muldoon, Law of Intervention (1989), p. 4 [para. 18].

Sopinka and Gelowitz, The Conduct of an Appeal (1993), p. 185 [para. 40].

Counsel:

Catherine J. Lunn, for the appellant Board;

Ian Blue, Q.C., and Blair H. Mitchell, for the respondent;

Raymond F. Larkin, Q.C., for the appli­cant/intervenor.

This application was heard in Chambers on February 18, 1999, before Pugsley, J.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, who delivered the following judgment on March 3, 1999.