Hart v. Carling O'Keefe Breweries of Canada Ltd. et al., (1994) 91 Man.R.(2d) 270 (QB)

• Judge: Hirschfield, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: March 04, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1994), 91 Man.R.(2d) 270 (QB)

Hart v. Carling O'Keefe Breweries (1994), 91 Man.R.(2d) 270 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Thomas Joseph Hart (plaintiff) v. Carling O'Keefe Breweries of Canada Ltd., Local 330W United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Molson Breweries/Les Brasseries Molson T-A, Molson Brewery Redwood Plant, The Great West Life Assurance Company, and Melvin Myers, Q.C., and Skwark, Myers, Kussin, Weinstein, a law firm (defendants)

(File No. CI 92-01-65043)

Indexed As: Hart v. Carling O'Keefe Breweries of Canada Ltd. et al.

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Hirschfield, J.

March 4, 1994.

Summary:

An employee brought an action against his employer, his union, the union's lawyer and an insurance company alleging, inter alia, conspiracy to deny him long-term disability benefits. Three of the defendants applied to dismiss the action on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction over the matter.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench allowed the defendants' application and dismissed the action.

Labour Law - Topic 7205

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - Civil action - Jurisdic­tion - An employee sued his employer, his union, the union's lawyer and the insurer after his long-term disability benefits were discontinued - He alleged, inter alia, con­spiracy to deny him the benefits; failure by the union to fairly represent him; and infringement by the lawyer of his rights of privacy by disclosure of his medical records - The collective agreement pro­vided for resolution of grievances - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that the court lacked jurisdiction - The employee should proceed with his claim under the grievance procedure in the col­lective agreement and should proceed before the Labour Board with his claim of unfair representation against the union.

Cases Noticed:

Campbell v. East-West Packers (1969) Ltd. (1982), 18 Man.R.(2d) 293 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

St. Anne Nackawic Pulp and 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; 28 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 16].

Gendron v. Supply and Services Union of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Local 50057 et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1298; 109 N.R. 321; 66 Man.R.(2d) 81; [1990] 4 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [para. 20].

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Corp., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 227; 26 N.R. 341; 25 N.B.R.(2d) 237; 51 A.P.R. 237; 97 D.L.R.(3d) 417; 79 C.L.L.C. 14,209, refd to. [para. 21].

Webb v. Ernst et al. (1991), 76 Man.R.(2d) 311; 10 W.A.C. 311 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

St. Anne Nackawic Pulp and Paper Co. v. Canadian Paper Workers Union, Local 219 (1982), 44 N.B.R.(2d) 10; 116 A.P.R. 10; 142 D.L.R.(3d) 678 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Statutes Noticed:

Labour Relations Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. L-10; C.C.S.M., L-10, sect. 4(1)(a), sect. 4(1)(b), sect. 4(1)(c), sect. 20, sect. 30(1), sect. 30(3)(a), sect. 30(3)(b), sect. 31(1), sect. 31(3)(a), sect. 31(4)(d), sect. 31(4)(h), sect. 31(4)(i), sect. 138(1), sect. 142(1)(a), sect. 142(1)(m), sect. 143(1) [para. 17].

Rules of Court (Man.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 21.01(3)(a), rule 25.11(c) [para. 1].

Authors and Works Notice d:

Adams, Canadian Labour Law: A Com­prehensive Text (1985), p. 154 [para. 20].

Counsel:

Grant R. Clay, for the plaintiff;

Robin Kersey and Lara Barley, for the defendants Carling O'Keefe Breweries and Molson Breweries;

Alvin McGregor, Q.C., for the defendant Local 330W United Food and Commer­cial Workers International Union;

Darcia Kohuch, for the defendant The Great West Life Assurance Company;

Gavin Wood, for the defendants Melvin Myers, Q.C., and Skwark, Myers, Kussin, Weinstein, a law firm.

This application was heard before Hirsch­field, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following judgment on March 4, 1994.