Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al., (2011) 424 N.R. 220 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 14, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2011), 424 N.R. 220 (SCC);2011 SCC 62

Nurses Union v. Nfld. (2011), 424 N.R. 220 (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: [2011] N.R. TBEd. DE.020

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Newfoundland and Labrador, represented by Treasury Board and Newfoundland and Labrador Health Boards Association, on behalf of Labrador-Grenfell Regional Health Authority (respondents)

(33659; 2011 SCC 62; 2011 CSC 62)

Indexed As: Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

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

December 15, 2011.

Summary:

An arbitrator concluded that under the collective agreement, the grievors' time as casual employees was not to be included in calculating the length of their vacation entitlement when they became permanent employees. The Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union applied for judicial review.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division, in a decision reported at (2008), 283 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 170; 873 A.P.R. 170, allowed the application. The chambers judge concluded that the arbitrator's reasons required "more cogency" and that his conclusion was "unsupported by any chain of reasoning that could be considered reasonable". The chambers judge concluded that reasons were insufficient and as a result, found the result to be unreasonable and set it aside. The employer appealed.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal, Cameron, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported at (2010), 294 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 161; 908 A.P.R. 161, allowed the appeal. The court concluded that while "a more comprehensive explanation" would have been preferable, the arbitrator's reasons were "sufficient to satisfy the Dunsmuir criteria" of "justification, transparency and intelligibility". The union appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The reasons showed that the arbitrator was alive to the question at issue and came to a result well within the range of reasonable outcomes.

Administrative Law - Topic 549

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Reasons for decisions - Sufficiency of - An arbitrator concluded that under the collective agreement, the grievors' time as casual employees was not to be included in calculating the length of their vacation entitlement when they became permanent employees - The arbitrator reasoned that casual employees worked on an occasional, intermittent basis, and were not required to come to work even when called - Article 2.01(b) of the collective agreement also expressly excluded casual employees from a number of benefits, including the vacation entitlement calculations applicable to permanent employees under article 17 - Instead, they received 20 percent of their basic salary in lieu - The union applied for judicial review - The chambers judge held that the arbitrator's reasons required "more cogency" and that his conclusion was "unsupported by any chain of reasoning that could be considered reasonable" - The chambers judge concluded that reasons were insufficient and, as a result, found the result to be unreasonable and set it aside - The employer appealed - The majority of the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal overturned the chambers judge's decision, concluding that while "a more comprehensive explanation" would have been preferable, the reasons were "sufficient to satisfy the Dunsmuir criteria" of "justification, transparency and intelligibility" - The union appealed - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal - The reasons showed that the arbitrator was alive to the question at issue and came to a result well within the range of reasonable outcomes.

Administrative Law - Topic 549

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Reasons for decisions - Sufficiency of - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that Dunsmuir did not stand for the proposition that the adequacy of reasons was a stand-alone basis for quashing a decision, or as advocating that a reviewing court undertake two discrete analyses, one for the reasons and a separate one for the result - The court stated that "It is a more organic exercise - the reasons must be read together with the outcome and serve the purpose of showing whether the result falls within a range of possible outcomes ... In assessing whether the decision is reasonable in light of the outcome and the reasons, courts must show 'respect for the decision-making process of adjudicative bodies with regard to both the facts and the law' .... This means that courts should not substitute their own reasons, but they may, if they find it necessary, look to the record for the purpose of assessing the reasonableness of the outcome. Reasons may not include all the arguments, statutory provisions, jurisprudence or other details the reviewing judge would have preferred, but that does not impugn the validity of either the reasons or the result under a reasonableness analysis. A decision-maker is not required to make an explicit finding on each constituent element, however subordinate, leading to its final conclusion ... In other words, if the reasons allow the reviewing court to understand why the tribunal made its decision and permit it to determine whether the conclusion is within the range of acceptable outcomes, the Dunsmuir criteria are met ... Reviewing judges should pay 'respectful attention' to the decision-maker's reasons, and be cautious about substituting their own view of the proper outcome by designating certain omissions in the reasons to be fateful" - See paragraphs 14 to 17.

Administrative Law - Topic 2155

Natural justice - Administrative decisions or findings - Effect of failure of tribunal or official to give reasons for decisions (incl. sufficiency of reasons) - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "Baker stands for the proposition that 'in certain circumstances', the duty of procedural fairness will require 'some form of reasons' for a decision ... It did not say that reasons were always required, and it did not say that the quality of those reasons is a question of procedural fairness. ... It strikes me as an unhelpful elaboration on Baker to suggest that alleged deficiencies or flaws in the reasons fall under the category of a breach of the duty of procedural fairness and that they are subject to a correctness review. ... It is true that the breach of a duty of procedural fairness is an error in law. Where there are no reasons in circumstances where they are required, there is nothing to review. But where, as here, there are reasons, there is no such breach. Any challenge to the reasoning/result of the decision should therefore be made within the reasonableness analysis" - See paragraphs 20 to 22.

Administrative Law - Topic 3221

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

Labour Law - Topic 9353

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - Decisions of adjudicators, arbitrators or grievance appeal boards - Scope of review (incl. standard) - [See first Administrative Law - Topic 549 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9354

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - Decisions of adjudicators, arbitrators, grievance appeal boards or officers - Unreasonable decisions - [See first Administrative Law - Topic 549 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9541

Public service labour relations - Collective agreement - Vacation and holidays - General - [See first Administrative Law - Topic 549 ].

Cases Noticed:

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, consd. [para. 1].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 12].

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Corp., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 227; 26 N.R. 341; 25 N.B.R.(2d) 237; 51 A.P.R. 237, refd to. [para. 13].

Service Employees' International Union, Local 333 v. Nipawin District Staff Nurses' Association et al., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 382, refd to. [para. 16].

Canada Post Corp. v. Public Service Alliance of Canada et al., [2011] 2 F.C.R. 221; 399 N.R. 127; 2010 FCA 56, refd to. [para. 18].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, consd. [para. 19].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Adams, George W., Canadian Labour Law (2nd Ed. 1993) (loose-leaf updated October 2011, release 40), § 4.1100 to 4.1110 [para. 24].

Brown, Donald J.M., and Evans, John M., Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada (1998) (loose-leaf updated August 2011), §12:5330, 12:5510 [para. 14].

Bryden, Philip, Standards of Review and Sufficiency of Reasons: Some Practical Considerations (2006), 19 C.J.A.L.P. 191, p. 217 [para. 21].

Dyzenhaus, David, The Politics of Deference: Judicial Review and Democracy, in The Province of Administrative Law (1997), 279, p. 304 [para. 12].

Huscroft, Grant, The Duty of Fairness: From Nicholson to Baker and Beyond, in Administrative Law in Context (2008), 115, p. 136 [para. 21].

Jones, David Phillip, Q.C., and Anne S. de Villars, Q.C., Principles of Administrative Law (5th ed. 2009), p. 380 [para. 12].

Mullan, David, Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, Standard of Review and Procedural Fairness for Public Servants: Let's Try Again! (2008), 21 C.J.A.L.P. 117, p. 136 [para. 12].

Counsel:

David G. Conway and Tracey L. Trahey, for the appellant;

Stephen F. Penney and Jeffrey Beedell, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

David G. Conway, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, for the appellant;

Stewart McKelvey, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on October 14, 2011, before McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered by Abella, J., in both official languages, on December 15, 2011.