Commission scolaire de Laval et al. v. Syndicat de l'enseignement de la région de Laval et al., (2016) 481 N.R. 25 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Abella, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Brown, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 14, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2016), 481 N.R. 25 (SCC);2016 SCC 8

Laval School Bd. v. Teachers Union (2016), 481 N.R. 25 (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: [2016] N.R. TBEd. MR.027

Commission scolaire de Laval and Fédération des commissions scolaires du Québec (appellants) v. Syndicat de l'enseignement de la région de Laval and Fédération autonome de l'enseignement (respondents) and Centrale des syndicats du Québec (intervener)

(35898; 2016 SCC 8; 2016 CSC 8)

Indexed As: Commission scolaire de Laval et al. v. Syndicat de l'enseignement de la région de Laval et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Abella, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Brown, JJ.

March 18, 2016.

Summary:

The Syndicat de l'enseignement de la région de Laval ("Union") filed a grievance with respect to the dismissal of a teacher. In the course of the inquiry into the grievance, the Commission scolaire de Laval ("Board") objected to the examination of three commissioners who were members of its executive committee, which had decided in camera to dismiss the teacher. In the Board's view, the motives of individual members of a collective body that underlie a decision made by the body by way of a resolution were "unknowable", and therefore irrelevant. In addition, the executive committee's members were shielded by deliberative secrecy from being compelled to testify regarding their in camera deliberations. The Fédération autonome de l'enseignement ("FAE") intervened in support of the Union's position. The Fédération des commissions scolaires du Québec ("FCSQ") also intervened, asking that the summonses to the executive committee members be quashed. The arbitrator dismissed the Board's objections and allowed the examination of the executive committee's members regarding their in camera deliberations and their decision to dismiss the teacher. The Board and the FCSQ brought a motion for judicial review of the arbitrator's interlocutory decision.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision with neutral citation 2012 QCCS 248, applied the standard of review of correctness. The court quashed the arbitrator's decision and barred any testimony by members of the executive committee except as regarded the formal process that led to their decision that was announced at a public meeting. The Union and FAE appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, Gagnon, J.A., dissenting, in a decision with neutral citation 2014 QCCA 591, applied the standard of review of correctness and allowed the appeals. The court restored the arbitrator's decision and allowed the examination of the executive committee's members, subject to the usual limits of what was relevant. The Board and FCSQ appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The majority found that the standard of review applicable to the arbitrator's interlocutory decision was reasonableness. The principle that the motives of a legislative body were "unknowable" and deliberative secrecy did not apply to a public employer, the Board in this case, that decided to take disciplinary action against an employee, even if an in camera meeting was ordered. The three members of the Board's executive committee could be examined, subject to the limits of what was relevant and to the other rules applicable to the inquiry into the grievance. The arbitrator had exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether any questions that might be asked were relevant. The court remanded the case to the arbitrator. Côté, J. (Wagner and Brown, JJ., concurring) held that the applicable standard of review in this case was correctness, but agreed that the appeal should be dismissed.

Administrative Law - Topic 552.1

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Deliberative secrecy - The Syndicat de l'enseignement de la région de Laval ("Union") filed a grievance with respect to the dismissal of a teacher - In the course of the inquiry into the grievance, the Commission scolaire de Laval ("Board") objected to the examination of three commissioners who were members of its executive committee, which had decided in camera to dismiss the teacher - The Board contended, inter alia, that the executive committee's members were shielded by deliberative secrecy from being compelled to testify regarding their in camera deliberations - The arbitrator dismissed the Board's objections and allowed the examination of the executive committee's members regarding their in camera deliberations and their decision to dismiss the teacher - The Supreme Court of Canada found that it was reasonable for the arbitrator to reject the argument regarding deliberative secrecy - The decision in Tremblay v. Commission des affaires sociales et autres (1992 SCC) concerned the deliberative secrecy that applied to bodies that performed adjudicative functions - When the executive committee decided to dismiss the teacher after deliberating in camera, it was not performing an adjudicative function and was not acting as a quasi-judicial decision maker - Rather, it was acting as an employer dismissing an employee - Its decision was one of a private nature that fell under employment law, not one of a public nature - The court rejected the argument that, because the executive committee was applying a statutory rule (the Board's obligation to ensure that the teacher had no judicial record relevant to his functions), its decision was adjudicative in nature - The executive committee was not performing an adjudicative function when it decided to dismiss the teacher - The discussions held by its members in camera were not shielded by deliberative secrecy - See paragraphs 56 to 65.

Administrative Law - Topic 1202

Classification of power or function - Powers or functions classified as quasi-judicial - What constitutes - [See Administrative Law - Topic 552.1 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3202

Judicial review - General - Scope or standard of review - [See Arbitration - Topic 7803 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 8870

Boards and tribunals - Members - Privilege respecting testimony and production of documents in civil proceedings - The Syndicat de l'enseignement de la région de Laval ("Union") filed a grievance with respect to the dismissal of a teacher - In the course of the inquiry into the grievance, the Commission scolaire de Laval ("Board") objected to the examination of three commissioners who were members of its executive committee, which had decided in camera to dismiss the teacher - The Board contended, inter alia, that the motives of individual members of a collective body that underlie a decision made by the body by way of a resolution were "unknowable", and therefore irrelevant - The arbitrator dismissed the Board's objections and allowed the examination of the executive committee's members regarding their in camera deliberations and their decision to dismiss the teacher - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the arbitrator did not err in not applying the principle that motives were "unknowable" when he allowed the examination of the executive committee's members - It was reasonable for the arbitrator to choose not to apply Consortium Developments (Clearwater) Ltd. v. Sarnia (City) et al., (1998 SCC) ("Clearwater") to the decision of the Board's executive committee - The rule from Clearwater applied only to decisions of a legislative, regulatory, policy or purely discretionary nature made by public bodies - Even though the Board was a legal person established in the public interest under the Education Act, it was acting as an employer when it decided to dismiss the teacher by way of a resolution of its executive committee - That decision had an effect on the employment contract between the teacher and the Board and was made in the context of a process provided for in the collective agreement between the parties - It was not a decision of a legislative, regulatory, policy or discretionary nature - In reviewing such a decision, a grievance arbitrator applied the principles of employment law that were applicable to any dismissal - It was reasonable for the arbitrator to rule that he needed to know what had taken place in camera in order to determine whether the executive committee's deliberations had been thorough - See paragraphs 40 to 55.

Arbitration - Topic 3599

The arbitrator - Powers - Power to order examination - [See Arbitration - Topic 4561 ].

Arbitration - Topic 4561

The hearing - Evidence - General - The Syndicat de l'enseignement de la région de Laval ("Union") filed a grievance with respect to the dismissal of a teacher - In the course of the inquiry into the grievance, the Commission scolaire de Laval ("Board") objected to the examination of three commissioners who were members of its executive committee, which had decided in camera to dismiss the teacher - The arbitrator dismissed the Board's objections and allowed the examination of the executive committee's members regarding their in camera deliberations and their decision to dismiss the teacher - The Quebec Superior Court quashed the arbitrator's decision and barred any testimony by members of the executive committee except as regarded the formal process that led to their decision that was announced at a public meeting - The Quebec Court of Appeal, Gagnon, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeals, restored the arbitrator's decision and allowed the examination of the executive committee's members, subject to the usual limits of what was relevant - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an appeal - The majority of the Court of Appeal were right to reject the Board's arguments regarding the principle that motives were "unknowable" and deliberative secrecy, to restore the impugned decision, and to allow the examination of the executive committee's members, subject to the usual limits of what was relevant - The court held that limits should not be placed in advance on the questions that could be asked of the executive committee's members - Assessing the relevance of evidence fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitrator - It was not open to a reviewing court to speculate about the types of questions that could be relevant before the examination had even begun - See paragraphs 66 to 74.

Arbitration - Topic 7803

Judicial review (incl. appeals) - General principles - Nature of review proceeding (incl. standard of review) - The Syndicat de l'enseignement de la région de Laval ("Union") filed a grievance with respect to the dismissal of a teacher - In the course of the inquiry into the grievance, the Commission scolaire de Laval ("Board") objected to the examination of three commissioners who were members of its executive committee, which had decided in camera to dismiss the teacher - In the Board's view, the motives of individual members of a collective body that underlied a decision made by the body by way of a resolution were "unknowable", and therefore irrelevant - In addition, the executive committee's members were shielded by deliberative secrecy from being compelled to testify regarding their in camera deliberations - The arbitrator dismissed the Board's objections and allowed the examination of the executive committee's members regarding their in camera deliberations and their decision to dismiss the teacher - The Supreme Court of Canada found that the standard of review applicable to the arbitrator's interlocutory decision was reasonableness - Whether the examination of the members of the executive committee should be allowed was ultimately an evidentiary issue - The arbitrator had exclusive jurisdiction over such matters - The determination was not a question of law of central importance to the legal system and outside the arbitrator's area of expertise, such that the standard of correctness should apply - The presumption that the reasonableness standard of review applied when an administrative tribunal interpreted or applied its home statute applied in this case - The arbitrator's decision to allow the Union to examine the executive committee's members was based on his conclusion that their testimony would be helpful to him in determining whether the collective agreement and the legislation had been complied with - That conclusion flowed from his interpretation of the local agreement between the parties and of the Education Act - See paragraphs 30 to 39 - Côté, J. (Wagner and Brown, JJ., concurring) held that the applicable standard of review was correctness - See paragraphs 76 to 86.

Arbitration - Topic 7969

Judicial review - Jurisdiction of arbitrator - General - Practice - [See Arbitration - Topic 4561 ].

Education - Topic 801

Education authorities - School commissions or boards - Members - General - [See Administrative Law - Topic 552.1 and Administrative Law - Topic 8870 ].

Education - Topic 821

Education authorities - School commissions or boards - Decisions - General - [See Administrative Law - Topic 552.1 and Administrative Law - Topic 8870 ].

Evidence - Topic 5607

Witnesses - Competency and compellability - Compellability - Particular persons - Boards and tribunals - Members and personnel - [See Administrative Law - Topic 552.1 and Administrative Law - Topic 8870 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9353

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - Decisions of adjudicators, arbitrators, grievance appeal boards or officers - Scope of review (incl. standard) - [See Arbitration - Topic 7803 ].

Cases Noticed:

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (Qué.) v. Montréal (Ville), [2008] 2 S.C.R. 698; 377 N.R. 316; 2008 SCC 48, refd to. [para. 10].

Tremblay v. Commission des affaires sociales et autres, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 952; 136 N.R. 5; 47 Q.A.C. 169, dist. [paras. 21, 77].

Consortium Developments (Clearwater) Ltd. v. Sarnia (City) et al., [1998] 3 S.C.R. 3; 230 N.R. 343; 114 O.A.C 92, dist. [paras. 21, 77].

Wells v. Newfoundland and Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (Nfld.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 199; 245 N.R. 275; 180 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 548 A.P.R. 269, refd to. [para. 24].

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. [paras. 24, 77].

Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières v. Syndicat des employés professionnels de l'Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières et al., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 471; 148 N.R. 209, refd to. [para. 31].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 31].

Brunet v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 537; 13 N.R. 233, refd to. [para. 31].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654; 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, appld. [para. 32].

Tervita Corp. et al. v. Commissioner of Competition et al., [2015] 1 S.C.R. 161; 467 N.R. 97; 2015 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 32].

Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Smith, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 160; 412 N.R. 66; 2011 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 32].

Commission scolaire de Rivière-du-Loup v. Syndicat de l'enseignement du Grand-Portage (Qué.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 913; 268 N.R. 166; 2000 SCC 62 refd to. [para. 32].

Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd. v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 30, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 458; 445 N.R. 1; 404 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 1048 A.P.R. 1; 2013 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 33].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708; 424 N.R. 220; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 33].

Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals v. Nor-Man Regional Health Authority Inc., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 616; 423 N.R. 95; 275 Man.R.(2d) 16; 538 W.A.C. 16; 2011 SCC 59, refd to. [paras. 33, 83].

United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 503 v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp., [2014] 2 S.C.R. 323; 459 N.R. 209; 2014 SCC 45, refd to. [para. 33].

Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (A.G.) - see Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat.

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471; 422 N.R. 248; 2011 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 34].

McLean v. British Columbia Securities Commission, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 895; 452 N.R. 340; 347 B.C.A.C. 1; 593 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 34].

Irving Oil Ltd., Canaport Ltd., Kent Lines Ltd. and Thorne's Hardware Ltd. v. National Harbours Board, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 106; 46 N.R. 91; 143 D.L.R.(3d) 577, refd to. [para. 46].

Syndicat des professionnelles et professionnels de l'éducation du Bas-St-Laurent v. Commission scolaire des Monts-et-Marées (2006), S.A.E. 7953; 54 R.S.E. 481, refd to. [para. 53].

Syndicat des enseignantes et enseignants de Le Royer v. Commission scolaire de la Pointe-de-l'Île (2000), S.A.E. 7006; 47 R.S.E. 1049, refd to. [para. 53].

Syndicat des travailleuses et travailleurs de l'enseignement de Portneuf C.E.Q. v. Commission scolaire de Portneuf (1988), S.A.E. 4674; 35 R.S.E. 1722, refd to. [para. 53].

Association des enseignants de Le Royer v. Commission scolaire régionale Le Royer (1975), S.A.E. 513; 6 R.S.E. 43, refd to. [para. 53].

Duke of Buccleuch v. Metropolitan Board of Works (1872), L.R. 5 H.L. 418 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 54].

O'Rourke v. Commissioner for Railways (1890), 15 App. Cas. 371, refd to. [para. 54].

Ward v. Shell-Mex, [1952] 1 K.B. 280, refd to. [para. 54].

Knight Lumber Co., Re (1959), 22 D.L.R.(2d) 92 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 54].

MacKeigan, J.A. et al. v. Royal Commission (Marshall Inquiry), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 796; 100 N.R. 81; 94 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 247 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 57].

Noble China Inc. et al. v. Lei (1998), 81 O.T.C. 1; 42 O.R.(3d) 69 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 60].

Comité de révision de l'aide juridique v. Denis, 2007 QCCA 126, refd to. [para. 60].

Cherubini Metal Works Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) et al. (2007), 253 N.S.R.(2d) 134; 807 A.P.R. 134; 2007 NSCA 37, refd to. [para. 60].

Coopers and Lybrand v. Minister of National Revenue, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 495; 24 N.R. 163, refd to. [para. 62].

Promutuel Dorchester, société mutuelle d'assurance générale v. Ferland, [2001] R.J.Q. 2882 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 64].

Compagnie minière Québec Cartier v. Métallurgistes unis d'Amérique, local 6869, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1095; 183 N.R. 313, refd to. [para. 68].

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 579 v. Bradco Construction Ltd., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 316; 153 N.R. 81; 106 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 140; 334 A.P.R. 140, refd to. [para. 68].

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees et al. v. Lethbridge Community College, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 727; 319 N.R. 201; 348 A.R. 1; 321 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 28, refd to. [para. 68].

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. 68].

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. 68].

North Island Laurentian Teachers' Union v. Commission scolaire Laurenval (1985), S.A.E. 3964; 33 R.S.E. 1262, refd to. [para. 70].

des Grandes-Seigneuries et Association des professeurs de Lignery (Vishwanee Joyejob), 2015 QCTA 663; [2015] AZ-51203453, refd to. [para. 70].

Syndicat des salariés de Béton St-Hubert - CSN v. Béton St-Hubert inc., 2010 QCCA 2270, refd to. [para. 74].

Sûreté du Québec v. Lussier, [1994] R.D.J. 470 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

Collège d'enseignement général et professionnel de Valleyfield v. Gauthier Cashman, [1984] R.D.J. 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

Lethbridge Regional Police Service et al. v. Lethbridge Police Association (2013), 542 A.R. 252; 566 W.A.C. 252; 2013 ABCA 47, refd to. [para. 74].

Canadian Nuclear Laboratories v. Int'l Union of Operating Engineers, Local 772, 2015 ONSC 3436, refd to. [para. 74].

Blass v. University of Regina Faculty Association (2007), 76 Admin. L.R.(4th) 262; 2007 SKQB 470, refd to. [para. 74].

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. 78].

Statutes Noticed:

Education Act, C.Q.L.R., c. I-13.3, sect. 34.3 [para. 8]; sect. 258.1 [para. 9]; sect. 261.0.1, sect. 261.0.2, sect. 261.0.3, sect. 261.0.4, sect. 261.0.5, sect. 261.0.6, sect. 261.0.7 [para. 8].

Labour Code, C.Q.L.R., c. C-27, sect. 1(f), sect. 100, sect. 100.2 [para. 31]; sect. 100.12(a) [para. 32]; sect. 100.12(f) [para. 31]; sect. 139, sect. 139.1, sect. 140 [para. 33].

Quebec Charter of human rights and freedoms, C.Q.LR., c. C-12, sect. 18.2 [para. 9].

Counsel:

Yann Bernard, René Paquette, Geneviève Beaudin and Kassandra Church, for the appellants;

Justine Dauphinais-Sauvé and Audrey Limoges-Gobeil, for the respondent, Syndicat de l'enseignement de la région de Laval;

Stéphane Forest and Gaétan Lévesque, for the respondent, Fédération autonome de l'enseignement;

Claudine Morin, Nathalie Léger and Amy Nguyen, for the intervener.

Solicitors of Record:

Langlois Kronström Desjardins, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellants;

Syndicat de l'enseignement de la région de Laval, Laval, Quebec, for the respondent, Syndicat de l'enseignement de la région de Laval;

Rivest, Schmidt, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent, Fédération autonome de l'enseignement;

Barabé Casavant, Montreal, Quebec, for the intervener.

This appeal was heard on October 14, 2015, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Abella, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Brown, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on March 18, 2016, including the following opinions:

Gascon, J. (McLachlin, C.J., Abella and Karakatsanis, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 75;

Côté, J., concurring in part (Wagner and Brown, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 76 to 86.