Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals v. Nor-Man Regional Health Authority Inc., (2011) 275 Man.R.(2d) 16 (SCC)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ.
• Citation: (2011), 275 Man.R.(2d) 16 (SCC),2011 SCC 59
• Date: 20 October 2011

Health Care v. Health Authority (2011), 275 Man.R.(2d) 16 (SCC);

    538 W.A.C. 16

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: [2012] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.030

Nor-Man Regional Health Authority Inc. (appellant) v. Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals (respondent) and Attorney General of British Columbia (intervenor)

(33795; 2011 SCC 59; 2011 CSC 59)

Indexed As: Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals v. Nor-Man Regional Health Authority Inc.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ.

December 2, 2011.

Summary:

Between 1988 and 1999, the grievor's employment status changed from casual to part-time and back to casual. After May 1999, she was employed in a part-time position that never reverted back to casual. The union maintained that the grievor's vacation entitlement should be based on her continuous employment since 1988. The employer asserted that as far back as 1988 casual employment had never been counted in determining vacation entitlement. The arbitrator ruled that the grievor's total employment, including casual, should be included in determining vacation entitlement but that the employer could rely on the principle of estoppel in delaying the implementation of that interpretation until the conclusion of the current collective agreement. The union sought judicial review.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2009), 243 Man.R.(2d) 281, dismissed the application. The union appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at (2010), 255 Man.R.(2d) 93; 486 W.A.C. 93, allowed the appeal. The court quashed the portion of the arbitrator's award that imposed an estoppel against the union and directed that the proper calculation of vacation entitlement for the grievor was to commence as of the date of her grievance. The employer appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, restoring the arbitrator's award in its entirety.

Arbitration - Topic 3585

The arbitrator - Powers - Respecting remedies - An arbitrator determined that the employer had breached its collective agreement with the union by excluding casual service in the calculation of vacation benefits - However, the arbitrator also found that the union was estopped from asserting its rights until the expiry of the current collective agreement - The Manitoba Court of Appeal, applying a standard of correctness, quashed the portion of the award imposing an estoppel against the union - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the employer's appeal, restoring the arbitrator's award in its entirety - The court rejected the union's assertion that "the flexible application of estoppel in the field of labour relations" was best left to the legislature - The requisite legislative authority already existed - It was inherent in the statutory scheme of the Labour Relations Act (Man.) and similar statutes across the country that labour arbitrators were authorized, subject to certain constraints, to apply general legal principles flexibly in resolving disputes under collective agreements - More particularly, arbitrators had a "statutory mandate  ... to fit the principle of estoppel into the special setting and policy objectives of the world of industrial relations" - See paragraph 54.

Arbitration - Topic 7803

Judicial review (incl. appeals) - General principles - Nature of review proceeding (incl. standard of review) - An arbitrator determined that the employer had breached its collective agreement with the union by excluding casual service in the calculation of vacation benefits - However, the arbitrator also found that the union was estopped from asserting its rights until the expiry of the current collective agreement - The Manitoba Court of Appeal, applying a standard of correctness, quashed the portion of the award imposing an estoppel against the union - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the employer's appeal, restoring the arbitrator's award in its entirety - Prevailing case law clearly established that arbitral awards under a collective agreement were, generally, subject to a reasonableness review - The issue on appeal was whether the arbitrator's imposition of an estoppel brought his award within an exception to the general rule for awards that applied common law or equitable remedies, which would be reviewed for correctness - Here, the arbitrator seized of a grievance under a collective agreement imposed estoppel as a remedy - No aspect of that remedy transformed it into a question of general law that was of central importance to the legal system and was outside of the arbitrator's area of expertise - See paragraphs 29 to 38.

Arbitration - Topic 7803

Judicial review (incl. appeals) - General principles - Nature of review proceeding (incl. standard of review) - An arbitrator determined that the employer had breached its collective agreement with the union by excluding casual service in the calculation of vacation benefits - However, the arbitrator also found that the union was estopped from asserting its rights until the expiry of the current collective agreement - The Manitoba Court of Appeal, applying a standard of correctness, quashed the portion of the award imposing an estoppel against the union - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the employer's appeal, restoring the arbitrator's award in its entirety - The contextual analysis mandated by New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008 S.C.C.) confirmed that reasonableness, not correctness, was the appropriate standard of review - Reviewing courts had to remain alive to the distinctive features of the collective bargaining relationship and reserve to arbitrators the right to craft labour-specific remedial doctrines - Within that domain, arbitral awards commanded deference - However, an arbitral award that flexed a common law or equitable principle in a manner that did not reasonably respond to the distinctive nature of labour relations necessarily remained subject to review for its reasonableness - Other contextual factors favouring judicial deference included the existence, here, of a privative clause and the fact that arbitrators benefited from institutional expertise in resolving disputes under a collective agreement even if they lacked personal expertise in matters of law - See paragraphs 39 to 53.

Labour Law - Topic 6413

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Interpretation - General principles - Application of doctrine estoppel - [See Arbitration - Topic 3585 ].

Labour Law - Topic 7011

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - General - Res judicata or estoppel - [See Arbitration - Topic 3585 ].

Labour Law - Topic 7011

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - General - Res judicata or estoppel - An arbitrator determined that the employer had breached its collective agreement with the union by excluding casual service in the calculation of vacation benefits - However, the arbitrator also found that the union was estopped from asserting its rights until the expiry of the current collective agreement - The employer's practice was long-standing, consistent and open - The employer was entitled to assume that the union had accepted its practice and to rely on that acceptance - The Manitoba Court of Appeal, applying a standard of correctness, quashed the portion of the award imposing an estoppel against the union - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the employer's appeal, restoring the arbitrator's award in its entirety - Reasonableness was the applicable standard - The arbitrator's imposition of estoppel here could hardly be considered unreasonable - He adapted and applied the equitable doctrine of estoppel in a manner that was reasonably consistent with the objectives and purposes of the Labour Relations Act (Man.), the principles of labour relations, the nature of the collective bargaining process and the factual matrix of this particular grievance - See paragraphs 56 to 62.

Labour Law - Topic 7041.3

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - Jurisdiction or powers of arbitrator or board - Respecting statutory rights (incl. human rights) and the general law - [See Arbitration - Topic 3585 ].

Labour Law - Topic 7044

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - Jurisdiction or powers of arbitrator or board - Respecting remedies for disputes or breaches of collective agreement - [See Arbitration - Topic 3585 ].

Labour Law - Topic 7112

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - Judicial review - Scope of review - [See both Arbitration - Topic 7803 ].

Labour Law - Topic 7118

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - Judicial review - Judicial deference to arbitration process - [See both Arbitration - Topic 7803 ].

Cases Noticed:

Agassiz School Division No. 13, Re, [1997] M.G.A.D. No. 61, refd to. [para. 17].

Manitoba (Department of Family Services and Housing) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2153 (Murdock, Re) (2005), 142 L.A.C.(4th) 173 (Arbitrator), refd to. [para. 17].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, appld. [para. 23].

Ryan v. Moore et al., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 53; 334 N.R. 355; 247 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 286; 735 A.P.R. 286; 2005 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 28].

Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Smith (2011), 412 N.R. 66; 2011 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 30].

Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291; 2003 SCC 63, refd to. [para. 35].

Board of Education of Toronto v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation District 15 et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 487; 208 N.R. 245; 98 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 47].

Social Services Administration Board (Parry Sound District) v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 324 et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 157; 308 N.R. 271; 177 O.A.C. 235; 2003 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 47].

Penticton (City) and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 608, Re (1978), 18 L.A.C.(2d) 307 (B.C.), refd to. [para. 50].

Montreal (City) v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. and Montreal Port Authority, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 427; 400 N.R. 279; 2010 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 57].

Maracle v. Travellers Indemnity Co. of Canada, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 50; 125 N.R. 294; 47 O.A.C. 333, refd to. [para. 59].

Counsel:

Bryan P. Schwartz, William S. Gardner and Todd C. Andres, for the appellant;

Jacob Giesbrecht, for the respondent;

Jonathan Eades and Meghan Butler, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

Pitblado, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the appellant;

Inkster, Christie, Hughes, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the respondent;

Attorney General of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia, for the intervenor.

This appeal was heard on October 20, 2011, by McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. On December 2, 2011, Fish, J., delivered the following reasons for judgment for the court in both official languages.