New Brunswick v. Pinder et al., 2012 NBCA 60

• Judge: Robertson, Quigg and Green, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
• Case Date: May 17, 2012
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: 2012 NBCA 60;(2012), 391 N.B.R.(2d) 110 (CA)

N.B. v. Pinder (2012), 391 N.B.R.(2d) 110 (CA);

    391 R.N.-B.(2e) 110; 1013 A.P.R. 110

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2012] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.018

Renvoi temp.: [2012] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.018

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of New Brunswick, as Represented by Board of Management on Behalf of the Department of Natural Resources (appellant) v. Peter Pinder and New Brunswick Union of Public and Private Employees (respondents)

(167-11-CA; 2012 NBCA 60)

Indexed As: New Brunswick v. Pinder et al.

Répertorié: New Brunswick v. Pinder et al.

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Robertson, Quigg and Green, JJ.A.

July 12, 2012.

Summary:

Résumé:

The Province (employer) sought judicial review of a decision of an adjudicator appointed under the Public Service Labour Relations Act. The matter arose as the result of two grievances brought by the New Brunswick Union of Public and Private Employees (Union) and an employee subject to the parties' collective agreement.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a decision reported at 385 N.B.R.(2d) 63; 997 A.P.R. 63, dismissed the application. The Province appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 549

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Reasons for decisions - Sufficiency of - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal stated that it had to "dispel the notion that judicial review of an adjudicative tribunal's decision embraced a two-step process: a review of the reasons for sufficiency and a review which focuses on the reasonableness of the result. As explained by this Court in Small v. New Brunswick Liquor Corporation ..., the Supreme Court recently rejected this approach in Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) ... . Abella J., writing for a unanimous Court, held that the adequacy of reasons is not a standalone basis for quashing a decision and that Dunsmuir does not stand for the proposition that a reviewing court must undertake two discrete analyses: one for the reasons and one for result. Instead, the reasons must be read together with the outcome for the purpose of determining whether the result falls within the range of possible outcomes." - See paragraph 7.

Administrative Law - Topic 3221

Judicial review - General - Unreasonableness of decision attacked (incl. reasonableness simpliciter) - [See Administrative Law - Topic 549 ].

Arbitration - Topic 5561

The award - Arriving at an award - Precedent - [See Courts - Topic 17 ].

Courts - Topic 17

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - General principles - Scope of stare decisis - The Province (employer) sought judicial review of a decision of an adjudicator appointed under the Public Service Labour Relations Act - The matter arose as the result of two grievances brought by the New Brunswick Union of Public and Private Employees (Union) and an employee subject to the parties' collective agreement - The application judge dismissed the application - The Province appealed, arguing, inter alia, that given Sackville (Town) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1188 et al. (2007, NBCA), the arbitrator erred in not following a previous decision by a different arbitrator (Matthews) - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal stated that "I have two reasons for rejecting the employer's argument that the adjudicator was bound by the earlier precedent of Arbitrator Matthews. First, the ruling of this Court in Town of Sackville applies only to those cases involving the same parties and the same collective agreement. Those are not the facts of the present case. My second reason is an affirmation of the adjudicator's reasoning. The adjudicator properly noted the earlier decision did not deal with the legal effect of s. 28 of the Civil Service Act or s. 3 of its Exclusions Regulation and, therefore, the legal principle articulated by this Court in Town of Sackville had no application. No adjudicative body is bound by an earlier decision that, for some unknown reason, failed to deal with legislation that was relevant to the underlying determination. Even the common law tenets of the stare decisis doctrine have long recognized the non-binding effect of per incuriam appellate decisions." - See paragraph 17.

Courts - Topic 78

Stare decisis, authority of judicial decisions - Prior decisions of same court - "Per incuriam" exception - [See Courts - Topic 17 ].

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 Labour Law - Topic 9868 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9868

Public service labour relations - Job layoffs and other work reduction schemes - Seniority clauses - Effect of - The New Brunswick Union of Public and Private Employees (Union) and Pinder filed grievances after Pinder and six other provincial employees had their positions eliminated - The affected employees were reassigned to vacant positions within their Department, without being given any option or choice, including the opportunity to "bump" into other positions within the bargaining unit held by members junior to them - An adjudicator allowed the grievances, holding that Pinder and the other employees were entitled to exercise their seniority rights under the collective agreement - The Province (employer) sought judicial review - The application judge dismissed the application - The arbitrator held that the seniority provisions of the collective agreement could be harmonized with the Civil Service Act - He acknowledged that the bumping provisions in s. 17 of the collective agreement clearly conflicted with s. 6(1) of the Act (bumping v. merit) - However, Reg. 84-230 excluded s. 6 (and other sections) in circumstances where the employer was required to "consider ... whether ... the employee could be retained on staff in another appropriate position ..." (Reg. 84-229) - He analyzed how Reg. 84-230 and s. 17 of the collective agreement complemented each other and could be harmonized - The arbitrator's decision was reasonable - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal agreed that the arbitrator's decision, including the adoption of the harmonization principle, was subject to a reasonableness standard of review - The court dismissed the appeal - See paragraphs 8 to 23.

Statutes - Topic 2617

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Modern rule (incl. interpretation by context) - Harmonization of statutes (incl. presumption of coherence) - Section 63(2) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act provided that no collective agreement shall, directly or indirectly, establish a new term of employment, or alter or eliminate a term of employment as set out in provincial legislation - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal stated that "... the harmonization principle is a logical extension of the coherence principle discussed in textbooks on statutory interpretation. The coherence principle involves the presumption that the provisions of legislation are meant to work together. ... In Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, 5th ed. ..., Professor Sullivan discusses the strategies which the courts have adopted for achieving coherence, including the option of adopting a strained or implausible interpretation, so long as it avoids the apparent conflict ... . However, the coherence and harmonization principles differ in at least one material respect. The harmonization principle cannot trump the legislative imperative found in s. 63(2) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act. If there is a conflict between a provision of a collective agreement and the Civil Service Act, the latter prevails." - See paragraph 12.

Arbitrage - Cote 5561

La sentence arbitrale - Cheminement vers la sentence - Précédents - [Voir Arbitration - Topic 5561 ].

Droit administratif - Cote 549

Audience et décision - Décisions du tribunal - Motifs suffisants - [Voir Administrative Law - Topic 549 ].

Droit administratif - Cote 3221

Révision judiciaire - Généralités - Caractère déraisonnable de la décision attaquée - [Voir Administrative Law - Topic 3221 ].

Droit du travail - Cote 9353

Relations de travail dans la fonction publique - Révision judiciaire - Décisions des adjudicateurs, arbitres, commissions d'appel de griefs ou fonctionnaires - Portée (y compris la norme de révision) - [Voir Labour Law - Topic 9353 ].

Droit du travail - Cote 9868

Relations de travail dans les services publics - Mises à pied et autres plans de réduction de travail - Effet des clauses d'ancienneté - [Voir Labour Law - Topic 9868 ].

Législation - Cote 2617

Interprétation - Interprétation de mots et d'expressions - Interprétation d'après le contexte (y compris la "règle moderne") - Cohérence des lois (y compris la présomption de cohérence) - [Voir Statutes - Topic 2617 ].

Tribunaux - Cote 17

Stare decisis - Autorité des décisions judiciaires - Principes généraux - Portée du stare decisis - [Voir Courts - Topic 17 ].

Tribunaux - Cote 78

Stare decisis - Autorité des décisions judiciaires - Décisions antérieures du même tribunal - Exception dite "per incuriam" - [Voir Courts - Topic 78 ].

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick Liquor Corp. v. Small (2012), 390 N.B.R.(2d) 203; 1011 A.P.R. 203; 2012 NBCA 53, refd to. [para. 7].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al. (2011), 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 424 N.R. 220; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 7].

Canada Post Corp. v. Carroll et al. (2012), 383 N.B.R.(2d) 326; 991 A.P.R. 326; 2012 NBCA 18, refd to. [para. 9].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654; 529 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 424 N.R. 70; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 9].

Saint John (City) v. Saint John Firefighters' Association, International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 771 (2011), 371 N.B.R.(2d) 247; 959 A.P.R. 247; 2011 NBCA 31, refd to. [para. 9].

Nor-Man Regional Health Authority Inc. v. Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals - see Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals v. Nor-Man Regional Health Authority Inc.

Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals v. Nor-Man Regional Health Authority Inc., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 616; 423 N.R. 95; 2011 SCC 59, appld. [para. 11].

Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 3; 132 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 12].

Tung-Sol of Canada Ltd. v. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 512 (Collective Agreement Grievance), [1964] O.L.A.A. No. 9, refd to. [para. 13].

Wilson v. New Brunswick (Department of Advanced Education and Labour), [1997] N.B.L.A.A. No. 32, refd to. [para. 14].

CUPE, Local 1188 and LeBlanc v. Town of Sackville - see Sackville (Town) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1188 et al.

Sackville (Town) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1188 et al. (2007), 313 N.B.R.(2d) 147; 809 A.P.R. 147; 2007 NBCA 18, dist. [para. 16].

Petts and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1251 and New Brunswick Council Provincial Institutional Unions v. New Brunswick (1984), 58 N.B.R.(2d) 68; 151 A.P.R. 68 (C.A.), consd. [para. 18].

New Brunswick v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1190 and Allain (1984), 56 N.B.R.(2d) 114; 146 A.P.R. 114 (C.A.), consd. [para. 18].

Petts and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1251, New Brunswick Council of Provincial Institutional Unions v. New Brunswick (Province) as Represented by Treasury Board (1984), 55 N.B.R.(2d) 351; 144 A.P.R. 351 (T.D.), consd. [para. 20].

Statutes Noticed:

Public Service Labour Relations Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. P-25, sect. 63(2) [para. 1].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th Ed. 2008), pp. 338, 339, 340 [para. 12].

Counsel:

Avocats:

Keith Mullin, for the appellant;

Leigh Sprague, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on May 17, 2012, by Robertson, Quigg and Green, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. Robertson, J.A., delivered the following decision for the court in both official languages on July 12, 2012.