Piko v. Hudson's Bay Co., (1998) 116 O.A.C. 92 (CA)

• Judge: Laskin, Charron and O'Connor, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: August 26, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1998), 116 O.A.C. 92 (CA);1998 CanLII 6874 (ON CA);41 OR (3d) 729;167 DLR (4th) 479;[1998] OJ No 4714 (QL);116 OAC 92;39 CCEL (2d) 46

Piko v. Hudson's Bay Co. (1998), 116 O.A.C. 92 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] O.A.C. TBEd. DE.042

Hermina Piko (plaintiff/appellant) v. Hudson's Bay Company (defendant/respondent)

(C26739)

Indexed As: Piko v. Hudson's Bay Co.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Laskin, Charron and

O'Connor, JJ.A.

November 19, 1998.

Summary:

Piko was charged with fraud because of an incident that took place in the workplace. The Crown withdrew the charge. Piko was discharged from her employment. Piko sued her employer for malicious prosecution and mental distress, alleging that her employer had initiated the criminal proceedings mali­ciously and without reasonable cause. The employer moved to dismiss the action on the ground that disputes between the parties should be settled under the collective agree­ment. The motions judge dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. Piko appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, because Piko's claim did not arise under the collective agreement.

Labour Law - Topic 7201

Industrial relations - Collective agreement -Enforcement - Civil action - When avail­able - Piko was charged with fraud be­cause of an incident that took place in the workplace - The Crown withdrew the charge - Piko was discharged from her employment - Piko sued her employer for malicious prosecution and mental distress, alleging that her employer had initiated the criminal proceedings maliciously and without reasonable cause - The employer moved to dismiss the action on the ground that disputes between the parties should be settled under the collective agreement - The motions judge dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction - Piko appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, because Piko's claim did not arise under the collective agreement.

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) 583; 95 C.L.L.C. 210-027; 12 C.C.E.L.(2d) 1; 24 C.C.L.T.(2d) 217, consd. [para. 1, footnote 1].

Piko v. Hudson's Bay Co. (1997), 24 O.T.C. 233 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 2, footnote 2].

Nelles v. Ontario et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170; 98 N.R. 321; 35 O.A.C. 161; 60 D.L.R.(4th) 609; 49 C.C.L.T. 217, refd to. [para. 8, footnote 3].

St. Anne-Nackawic Pulp & Paper Co. v. Canadian Paper Workers 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; 86 C.L.L.C. 14,037, refd to. [para. 10, footnote 5].

Ruscetta v. Graham et al. (1998), 114 O.A.C. 320 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 7].

Dwyer v. Canada Post, [1997] O.A.C. Uned. 237 (C.A.), affing. [1995] O.J. No. 3265 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 7].

Praskey v. Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board et al. (1997), 96 O.A.C. 237; 143 D.L.R.(4th) 298 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 7].

Pilon v. International Minerals and Chem­ical Corp. (Canada) Ltd. et al. (1996), 97 O.A.C. 286; 31 O.R.(3d) 210 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 7].

Chapman v. 3M Canada Inc., [1995] O.J. No. 4564 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 7].

Kulyk v. Board of Education of Toronto et al. (1996), 11 O.T.C. 161; 139 D.L.R.(4th) 114 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 7].

Ortiz v. Patrk et al. (1998), 75 O.T.C. 81 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 7].

Electrical Contractors Association of Thunder Bay v. Daniels et al. (1997), 26 O.T.C. 209 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 7].

Giorno v. Pappas et al. (1998), 50 O.T.C. 198 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 12, foot­note 7].

Statutes Noticed:

Labour Relations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L-2, sect. 45(1) [para. 10, footnote 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (9th Ed. 1998), p. 674 [para. 8, footnote 3].

Counsel:

T. James Treloar, for the appellant;

Michael Kennedy, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on August 26, 1998, before Laskin, Charron and O'Connor, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered by Laskin, J.A., and released on November 19, 1998.