Saskatchewan Health-Care Association et al. v. Saskatchewan Union of Nurses et al., (1999) 182 Sask.R. 248 (QB)

• Judge: Zarzeczny, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: July 08, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1999), 182 Sask.R. 248 (QB)

Health-Care Assoc. v. Nurses Union (1999), 182 Sask.R. 248 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] Sask.R. TBEd. JL.041

Saskatchewan Health-Care Association, commonly known as The Saskatchewan Association of Health Organizations, et al. (plaintiffs/applicants) v. Saskatchewan Union of Nurses, Rosalee Longmoore, representing herself and all members of the Saskatchewan Union of Nurses, Beverley Crossman, Garth Robson and Donna Ottenson, representing themselves and all persons authorized on behalf of Saskatchewan Union of Nurses to bargain collectively, and Kathleen Connors, representing herself and all members of the National Federation of Nurses Union (defendants/respondents)

(1999 Q.B. No. 1031)

Indexed As: Saskatchewan Health-Care Association et al. v. Saskatchewan Union of Nurses et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Zarzeczny, J.

July 8, 1999.

Summary:

In a decision reported at 176 Sask.R. 179, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench enjoined the Saskatchewan Union of Nurses and its officers from counselling their mem­ber nurses to continue their strike against their employers and ordered them to direct the nurses to return to work. The Union admitted it engaged in contempt of the order. At issue was the appropriate penalty or sanction to be imposed against the Union.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the Union was in criminal con­tempt, fined the Union $120,000 and awarded costs against the Union on a solici­tor/client basis. The court ordered that the contempt could be purged upon the Union making specified donations to certain health related foundations.

Contempt - Topic 510

What constitutes contempt - General prin­ciples - Criminal contempt - The Saskatchewan Union of Nurses went on strike - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench ordered the nurses back to work - The Union's president held a press conference, stating that the nurses intended to continue the illegal strike - Other press releases, media interviews and communica­tions by the Union to its members showed a public and deliberate intention to disobey the order - The Union and its officers admitted to being in contempt of the order by counselling their members to continue their strike against their employers - The Union asserted its actions did not constitute crimi­nal contempt - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the Union was in criminal contempt - The court reviewed the law on what must be proven in a criminal contempt of court application.

Contempt - Topic 3304

Punishment - Purging of contempt - What constitutes contempt - General principles - Criminal contempt - The Saskatchewan Union of Nurses went on strike - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench ordered the nurses back to work - The Union continued striking - The Union and its officers admitted to being in contempt of the order by counselling their members to continue their strike - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held the Union in criminal contempt and fined the Union $120,000 - The court gave the Union the opportunity to purge its contempt by mak­ing specified donations to certain health foundations - It was necessary and appro­priate to give the Union an opportunity to demonstrate to the Saskatchewan people that they did and would continue to respect their lawful obligations while at the same time demonstrating their commitment to the health care of Saskatchewan citizens.

Contempt - Topic 3315

Punishment - Fines - [See Contempt - Topic 3304 ].

Labour Law - Topic 8925

Industrial relations - Remedies - Injunc­tions - Enforcement - Criminal contempt - [See Contempt - Topic 510 and Con­tempt - Topic 3304 ].

Cases Noticed:

United Nurses of Alberta v. Alberta (Attor­ney General), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 901; 135 N.R. 321; 125 A.R. 241; 14 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 17].

Morris et al. v. Crown Office, [1970] 1 All E.R. 1079 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Poje v. British Columbia (Attorney Gen­eral), [1953] 1 S.C.R. 516, refd to. [para. 20].

British Columbia Government Employees' Union v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214; 87 N.R. 241; 71 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 93; 220 A.P.R. 93, refd to. [para. 20].

Regina (City) v. Cunningham (1994), 123 Sask.R. 233; 74 W.A.C. 233 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. United Fisherman and Allied Work­ers' Union et al. (1967), 65 D.L.R.(2d) 579 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Iron Ore Co. of Canada v. United Steel Workers of America, Local 5795 and Dwyer et al. (1979), 20 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 27; 53 A.P.R. 27 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson - see MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Brown et al.

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Brown et al., [1994] 7 W.W.R. 259; 44 B.C.A.C. 241; 71 W.A.C. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1400 v. Woolworth (F.W.) Co. and McCrea (1992), 107 Sask.R. 253 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 28].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Charbonneau et al. (1972), 40 D.L.R.(3d) 65 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Counsel:

Dennis P. Ball, Q.C., and Brian J. Kenny, for the plaintiffs;

Neil R. McLeod, for the defendants;

Darryl J. Brown, for the Government of Saskatchewan.

This action was heard by Zarzeczny, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following decision on July 8, 1999.