Goudie et al. v. Ottawa (City), (2003) 170 O.A.C. 201 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C. and Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 10, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2003), 170 O.A.C. 201 (SCC);2003 SCC 14;[2003] SCJ No 12 (QL);[2003] 1 SCR 141;JE 2003-636;23 CCEL (3d) 1;[2003] ACS no 12;223 DLR (4th) 395;170 OAC 201;301 NR 201

Goudie v. Ottawa (2003), 170 O.A.C. 201 (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: [2003] O.A.C. TBEd. MR.059

Corporation of the City of Ottawa (appellant) v. Ken Goudie, Ron Labonté, Lloyd Laframboise, Conrad Lirette and Rémi Séguin (respondents)

(28469; 2003 SCC 14; 2003 CSC 14)

Indexed As: Goudie et al. v. Ottawa (City)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C. and Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.

March 20, 2003.

Summary:

The plaintiffs, former civilian members of the police force, joined the City of Ottawa's Department of Physical Environment. The plaintiffs alleged that they had agreed to the transfer on the basis of the City's representation that the terms and conditions of their employment would remain the same as they had enjoyed under the Police Association's collective agreement. The City changed the plaintiffs' working hours, and they brought an action. The City then moved to have the action dismissed.

The Ontario Superior Court held that, on the basis of the Supreme Court of Canada's rulings in Weber v. Ontario Hydro, the court had no jurisdiction. The action was therefore dismissed. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 139 O.A.C. 372, allowed the appeal and set aside the order dismissing the action. The City appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Labour Law - Topic 9044

Public service labour relations - The employment contract - Pre-employment contractual terms - The plaintiffs, civilian members of the police force, transferred to the defendant employer (the City), allegedly under an agreement that the terms of their employment would remain the same as under the Police Association's collective agreement - The City changed the plaintiffs' working hours, and they brought an action - A motions judge held that the court had no jurisdiction over this "labour relations" matter - The plaintiffs successfully argued on appeal that the court had jurisdiction because their claims arose from a pre-employment agreement with the City, not from the collective agreement - The City appealed - The Supreme Court of Canada held that if a pre-employment agreement was made as alleged, a claim for its enforcement could not be said to arise from the interpretation, application, administration or violation of the collective agreement - See paragraphs 22 to 26.

Labour Law - Topic 9076

Public service labour relations - Remedies - Civil action - When available - [See Labour Law - Topic 9044 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9655

Public service labour relations - Collective agreement - Civil action - Jurisdiction - [See Labour Law - Topic 9044 ].

Practice - Topic 5359.1

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General - Lack of jurisdiction - The plaintiffs, civilian members of the police force, transferred to the defendant employer (the City), allegedly under an agreement that the terms of their employment would remain the same as under the Police Association's collective agreement - The City changed the plaintiffs' working hours, and they brought an action - The City moved under rule 21.01(3)(a) to have the action dismissed, challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear this "labour relations" matter - The motions judge held that the court was without jurisdiction and dismissed the action - The Supreme Court of Canada held that "it was not appropriate for [the City] to attempt to turn a jurisdictional challenge under [Civil Procedure Rule 21.01(3)(a)] into a mini-trial on a disputed, central question of fact. If [the City] was of the view that the pleading of a pre-employment contract was a sham and raised no genuine issue for trial, it ought to have moved for summary judgment pursuant to rule 20.01 ... In light of the factual issues raised by the pleadings, the jurisdictional issue could not be determined on a preliminary motion" - See paragraphs 27 to 34.

Practice - Topic 5381

Dismissal of action - Application or motion for dismissal - General - [See Practice - Topic 5359.1 ].

Practice - Topic 5702

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Jurisdiction or when available or appropriate - [See Practice - Topic 5359.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

St. Anne Nackawic Pulp & Paper Co. v. Canadian Paper Workers Union, Local 219, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 704; 68 N.R. 112; 73 N.B.R.(2d) 236; 184 A.P.R. 236, refd to. [para. 22].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321; 125 D.L.R.(4th) 583, refd to. [para. 23].

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; [2000] 4 W.W.R. 149, refd to. [para. 23].

Wainright v. Vancouver Shipyards Co. (1987), 38 D.L.R.(4th) 760 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Johnston et al. v. Dresser Industries Canada Ltd. (1990), 36 O.A.C. 371; 75 O.R.(2d) 609 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Jadwani v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2001), 141 O.A.C. 22; 52 O.R.(3d) 660 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Giorno v. Pappas (1999), 117 O.A.C. 187; 170 D.L.R.(4th) 160 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Bhaduria v. Board of Education of Toronto et al. (1999), 117 O.A.C. 356; 173 D.L.R.(4th) 382 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Bhairo v. Westfair Foods Ltd. (1997), 115 Man.R.(2d) 234; 139 W.A.C. 234 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Allen et al. v. Alberta et al. (2001), 286 A.R. 132; 253 W.A.C. 132 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Young Estate et al. v. TransAlta Utilities Corp. et al. (1997), 209 A.R. 89; 160 W.A.C. 89 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Roberts v. Browning Ferris Industries Ltd. (1998), 170 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 228; 522 A.P.R. 228 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Dawson et al. v. Rexcraft Storage and Warehouse Inc. et al. (1998), 111 O.A.C. 201; 164 D.L.R.(4th) 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 31].

Adler v. Dickson, [1954] 1 W.L.R. 1482 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Leufkens v. Alba Tours International Inc. et al., [2001] O.T.C. 127; 53 O.R.(3d) 112 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 32].

Swales et al. v. Glendinning et al., [2000] O.T.C. 743; 191 D.L.R.(4th) 750 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 32].

Transamerica Life Insurance Co. of Canada v. Canada Life Assurance Co. et al. (1996), 2 O.T.C. 146; 28 O.R.(3d) 423 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 32].

1061590 Ontario Ltd. v. Ontario Jockey Club et al. (1995), 77 O.A.C. 196; 21 O.R.(3d) 547 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Aguonie v. Galion Solid Waste Material Inc. (1998), 107 O.A.C. 114; 156 D.L.R.(4th) 222 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Ungerman (Irving) Ltd. et al. v. Galanis and Haut (1991), 50 O.A.C. 176; 4 O.R.(3d) 545 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321; 4 C.C.L.T.(2d) 1; 43 C.P.C.(2d) 105; 49 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 321; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [para. 34].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.), R.R.O. 1990, reg. 194, rule 21.01(3)(a) [para. 20].

Counsel:

Eugene Meehan, Q.C., and Stuart Huxley, for the appellant;

Emilio S. Binavince and Helen Lanctôt, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Lang Michener, Ottawa; Corporation of the City of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Binavince Smith, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on December 10, 2002, by McLachlin, C.J.C., and Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages by Binnie, J., on March 20, 2003.