Hutlet v. 4093887 Canada Ltd. et al., (2015) 315 Man.R.(2d) 256 (CA)

• Judge: Cameron, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: February 19, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2015), 315 Man.R.(2d) 256 (CA);2015 MBCA 25

Hutlet v. 4093887 Can. (2015), 315 Man.R.(2d) 256 (CA);

      630 W.A.C. 256

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.013

Michelle Hutlet (plaintiff/respondent) v. 4093887 Canada Ltd. and 4093879 Canada Ltd. (defendants/appellants)

(AI 15-30-08316; 2015 MBCA 25)

Indexed As: Hutlet v. 4093887 Canada Ltd. et al.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Cameron, J.A.

March 4, 2015.

Summary:

The statement of claim alleged that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant corporations for some 13 years, and that she was not paid overtime wages, in breach of s. 17 of Manitoba's Employment Standards Code. The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim on the basis that it failed to plead a cause of action. The main issue was whether an employee's right to overtime wages provided by the Code could be enforced in an action, or whether the employee's only avenue for redress was to file a complaint with an employment standards officer. There was appellate authority for both positions.

A Master of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2012), 286 Man.R.(2d) 237, dismissed the motion. The defendants appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2014), 311 Man.R.(2d) 222, dismissed the appeal. The Canadian Association of Counsel to Employers moved for intervener status. It maintained that it could present a broader, unique perspective from that of the defendants, in that it could bring a province-wide and nation-wide employer perspective.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, per Cameron, J.A., dismissed the motion.

Practice - Topic 682

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Intervenors - Interest in subject matter - The statement of claim alleged that the plaintiff was employed by the defendants for some 13 years, and that she was not paid overtime wages, in breach of Manitoba's Employment Standards Code - The Canadian Association of Counsel to Employers (CACE) moved for intervener status in the appeal by the defendants from an order dismissing a motion to strike the claim - The Manitoba Court of Appeal, per Cameron, J.A., dismissed the motion - "CACE has not persuaded me that it would make a useful contribution to the resolution of the appeal without causing injustice to the immediate parties. Neither am I convinced that it could provide an important perspective distinct from the immediate parties. ... [T]he defendants, as employers, will be able to thoroughly canvass all of the issues involved in the appeal." - With respect to CACE's position that the decision would have national implications in that it engaged the provisions of the Code relating to wages being held in trust and thereby without limitation periods, the motion judge refused to decide that argument on the basis that it was not claimed by the plaintiff - As to the contention that CACE would argue that a narrow interpretation of the Code would fail to recognize national and/or inter-jurisdictional character of employers, the national perspective was and would be canvassed as evidenced by the defendants' allegation that the motion judge erred in interpreting the Code.

Cases Noticed:

Sawatzky v. Riverview Health Centre Inc. (1998), 133 Man.R.(2d) 41 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Mabior (C.L.) (2009), 245 Man.R.(2d) 81; 466 W.A.C. 81; 2009 MBCA 93, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Creekside Hideaway Motel Ltd. et al. (2007), 212 Man.R.(2d) 231; 389 W.A.C. 231; 2007 MBCA 19, refd to. [para. 8].

Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2008), 231 Man.R.(2d) 178; 437 W.A.C. 178; 2008 MBCA 131, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Rémillard (R.) (2006), 208 Man.R.(2d) 1; 383 W.A.C. 1 206; 2006 MBCA 2, refd to. [para. 8].

Counsel:

D.A. Simpson, for the appellants;

R.H. Kravetsky, for the respondent;

J.A. Jurczak, for the proposed intervenor.

This Chambers motion to intervene was heard on February 19, 2015, before Cameron, J.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision, dated March 4, 2015.