Phillips v. Harrison,

• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Judge: Philp, Kroft and Steel, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2000 MBCA 150
• Citation: (2000), 153 Man.R.(2d) 1 (CA),2000 MBCA 150,196 DLR (4th) 69,[2001] 3 WWR 589,4 CCLT (3d) 248,[2000] MJ No 606 (QL),153 Man R (2d) 1,238 WAC 1,3 CPC (5th) 40,8 CCEL (3d) 1,153 ManR(2d) 1,238 W.A.C. 1,[2000] M.J. No 606 (QL),153 Man.R.(2d) 1,196 D.L.R. (4th) 69,(2000), 153 ManR(2d) 1 (CA)
• Date: 18 September 2000
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)

Phillips v. Harrison (2000), 153 Man.R.(2d) 1 (CA);

    238 W.A.C. 1

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.008

Katherine Eileen Phillips (plaintiff/appellant) v. Floyd Harrison (defendant/respondent)

(AI 00-30-04608; 2000 MBCA 150)

Indexed As: Phillips v. Harrison

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Philp, Kroft and Steel, JJ.A.

December 21, 2000.

Summary:

Phillips was a civilian member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) employed as a telecommunications dispatcher. Harrison was her supervisor. Phillips complained that Harrison made derogatory and defamatory comments about her mental health to other members in the detachment. Following an investigation, the investigator decided that Harrison's conduct did not amount to harassment. Phillips had the option to grieve the decision, but she did not do so. Rather, she resigned and sued Harrison for defamation and interference with contractual relations between Phillips and her employer. Harrison moved for an order staying or dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 144 Man.R.(2d) 287, granted the motion and struck the statement of claim. The court held that the dispute came within the grievance process set out in the RCMP Act and the court therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear the action. Phillips appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motions judge erred in striking out the statement of claim. The grievance procedure was not expressly or by implication the sole process mandated by legislation for resolution of this sort of dispute and the action had not been shown to be clearly unsustainable on the basis of lack of jurisdiction.

Courts - Topic 2086

Jurisdiction - Extent of - Interpretation of statute ousting jurisdiction - The Manitoba Court of Appeal considered the issue of whether the court was an appropriate forum to adjudicate disputes between parties who had access to a statutorily based dispute resolution mechanism - The court stated that "even in the absence of an express grant of exclusive jurisdiction in the legislation, or the absence of a collective agreement between the parties, the courts may still defer to the intentions and preferences of the legislators. They will do so by a contextual analysis of several interrelated considerations. These considerations will usually result in a deferral of jurisdiction to the statutorily based dispute resolution regime where: 1. the legislation establishes a comprehensive dispute resolution scheme intended, either expressly or inferentially, to govern all aspects of the relationship between parties in an employment setting; and 2. the scheme addresses, either expressly or inferentially, the essential character of the dispute between the parties, which in itself arises from the employment relationship; and 3. the scheme provides an effective remedy" - See paragraph 46.

Labour Law - Topic 9076

Public service labour relations - Remedies - Civil action - When available - [See Police - Topic 4007 ].

Police - Topic 4007

Internal organization - Jurisdiction - General - Phillips was a civilian member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) employed as a telecommunications dispatcher - Harrison was her supervisor - Phillips complained that Harrison made derogatory and defamatory comments about her mental health to other members of the detachment - Following an investigation, the investigator decided that Harrison's conduct did not amount to harassment - Phillips had the option to grieve the decision, but she did not do so - Rather, she resigned and sued Harrison for defamation and interference with contractual relations between Phillips and her employer - A motions judge struck the statement of claim, holding that the dispute came within the grievance process set out in the RCMP Act and the court therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear the action - The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed an appeal, holding that the motions judge erred in striking the statement of claim - The action had not been shown to be clearly unsustainable on the basis of lack of jurisdiction.

Cases Noticed:

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321; 125 D.L.R.(4th) 321, consd. [para. 9].

Phillips v. Canada, [1971] 1 F.C. 756 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 10].

Gendron v. Supply and Services Union of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Local 50557 et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1298; 109 N.R. 321; 66 Man.R.(2d) 81; 90 C.L.L.C. 14,020, consd. [para. 31].

Pleau v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1999), 181 N.S.R.(2d) 356; 560 A.P.R. 356 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (2000), 262 N.R. 399; 190 N.S.R.(2d) 200; 594 A.P.R. 200 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 31].

St. Anne Nackawic Pulp & Paper Co. v. Canadian Paperworkers Union, Local 219, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 704; 68 N.R. 112; 73 N.B.R.(2d) 236; 184 A.P.R. 236; 28 D.L.R.(4th) 1, consd. [para. 33].

Johnson-Paquette v. Canada (2000), 253 N.R. 305 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 39].

Regina Police Association Inc. and Shotton v. Board of Police Commissioners of Regina, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 360; 251 N.R. 16; 189 Sask.R. 23; 216 W.A.C. 23, consd. [para. 40].

Danilov v. Atomic Energy Control Board (1999), 125 O.A.C. 130 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2000), 260 N.R. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 44].

Delisle et al. v. Inkster et al. (1993), 67 F.T.R. 213 (T.D.), consd. [para. 55].

Rae v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] F.C.J. No. 1269 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 56].

Bhairo v. Westfair Foods Ltd. (1997), 115 Man.R.(2d) 234; 139 W.A.C. 234 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

Giorno v. Pappas (1999), 117 O.A.C. 187; 170 D.L.R.(4th) 160 (C.A.), consd. [para. 66].

Ruscetta v. Graham (1997), 39 O.T.C. 76; 31 C.C.E.L.(2d) 244 (Gen. Div.), affd. (1998), 114 O.A.C. 320; 36 C.C.E.L.(2d) 177 (C.A.), consd. [para. 67].

Bhaduria v. Board of Education of Toronto et al. (1999), 117 O.A.C. 356; 173 D.L.R.(4th) 382 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

Sloan v. Board of Education of York Region, [2000] O.A.C. Uned. 175 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

Dwyer v. Canada Post Corp., [1995] O.J. No. 3265 (Gen. Div.), affd. [1997] O.A.C. Uned. 237 (C.A.) refd to. [para. 68].

Haight-Smith v. Neden, [2000] B.C.T.C. 610 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 68].

Ortiz v. Patrk et al. (1998), 75 O.T.C. 81; 40 C.C.E.L.(2d) 84 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 69].

Irving Oil Ltd., Refining Division v. Energy and Chemical Workers Union, Local 691 (1983), 47 N.B.R.(2d) 205; 124 A.P.R. 205; 148 D.L.R.(3d) 398 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

Mendoza v. St. Michael's Centre Hospital Society et al., [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. 469; 36 C.C.E.L.(2d) 252 (S.C.), consd. [para. 70].

Graham v. Strait Crossing Inc. (1999), 171 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 116; 525 A.P.R. 116; 170 D.L.R.(4th) 152 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

Piko v. Hudson's Bay Co. (1998), 116 O.A.C. 92; 167 D.L.R.(4th) 479 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

Hall v. Puchniak et al. (1995), 107 Man.R.(2d) 93; 109 W.A.C. 93 (C.A.), consd. [para. 82].

Counsel:

G.F. Lowes, for the appellant;

D.A. Fraser, for the Attorney General of Canada.

This appeal was heard on September 18, 2000, before Philp, Kroft and Steel, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. The following decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Steel, J.A, on December 21, 2000.