Rogers Sugar Ltd. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 832, (1999) 140 Man.R.(2d) 258 (QB)

• Judge: Steel, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: August 10, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1999), 140 Man.R.(2d) 258 (QB)

Rogers Sugar Ltd. v. UFCW (1999), 140 Man.R.(2d) 258 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. AU.027

Rogers Sugar Ltd. (applicant) v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 832 (respondent)

(CI 97-01-05011)

Indexed As: Rogers Sugar Ltd. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 832

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Steel, J.

August 10, 1999.

Summary:

An employer sought an order quashing an arbitrator's award and a declaration confirm­ing an earlier decision of the arbitrator's.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 3342

Judicial review - General - Practice - Limi­tation period - An employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award - The union argued that the application was filed outside the mandatory time limit of "30 days" for the application under s. 128(3) of the Labour Relations Act - The employer argued that the term "days" in the Act meant business days (not calendar) and therefore the application was within time - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that "days" in s. 128(3) referred to calendar days - The common law presump­tion and the most usual judicial interpreta­tion of the meaning of "days" was calendar days - A contrary intention was not shown - Failure to comply with the mandatory time limit was fatal to the application - See paragraphs 10 to 25.

Arbitration - Topic 7956

Judicial review - Jurisdiction of arbitrator - General - Exhaustion of jurisdiction (functus officio) - An arbitrator rendered an award - The parties then asked the arbitrator for clarification on two separate occasions - The employer sought judicial review of the arbitrator's award - It argued, inter alia, that the arbitrator's second clarification was a reversal of the first clarification and was therefore functus officio - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench reviewed the doctrine of functus officio and held that there was no reversal by the arbitrator - The arbitrator was with­in his retained jurisdiction of implementing his award and was attempting to clarify his decision in response to specific questions asked - At most, the arbitrator erred in expres­sing his manifest intention - See para­graphs 27 to 36.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 8

General principles - Interpretation of limi­tation provisions - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3342 ].

Time - Topic 2501

Days - General principles - General - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3342 ].

Words and Phrases

Days - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench interpreted the meaning of this word as found in s. 128(3) of the Labour Rela­tions Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. L-10; C.C.S.M., c. L-10 - See paragraphs 10 to 24.

Cases Noticed:

Health Sciences Centre v. Canadian Union of Public Employees (1995), 101 Man.R.(2d) 242 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 11].

Canadian Association of Industrial, Mech­anical and Allied Workers, Local 1 v. Kodiak Industries Ltd. et al. (1986), 48 Man.R.(2d) 25; 87 C.L.L.C. 14,030 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 11].

International Fur and Leather Workers Union, Re; Robson Leather Co. (Oshawa) (1951), 3 L.A.C. 954, refd to. [para. 16].

Manitoba v. Human Rights Commission (Man.), Galbraith and Lylyk, [1984] 2 W.W.R. 289; 25 Man.R.(2d) 117 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Vialoux v. Registered Psychiatric Nurses Association (Man.) (1983), 23 Man.R.(2d) 310 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Westfair Foods Ltd. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 832 (1993), 87 Man.R.(2d) 224 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 30].

Chandler v. Alberta Association of Archi­tects, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 848; 99 N.R. 277; 101 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 31].

Kates v. Canada Post Corp. (1991), 52 O.A.C. 319; 84 D.L.R.(4th) 574 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 31].

Canada Post Corp. v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers - see Kates v. Canada Post Corp.

Swire, Re; Mellor v. Swire (1885), 30 Ch.D. 239 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Joyce and Canadian Media Guild (1997), 101 O.A.C. 266; 34 O.R.(3d) 493 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 32].

Paper Machinery Ltd. v. Ross (J.O.) En­gin­eering Corp., [1934] S.C.R. 186, refd to. [para. 32].

Brandon Division Association No. 40 of the Manitoba Teachers' Society v. Brandon School Division No. 40 (1983), 23 Man.R.(2d) 178 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 37].

Statutes Noticed:

Labour Relations Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. L-10; C.C.S.M., c. L-10, sect. 48(5) [para. 13]; sect. 128(3) [para. 10].

Labour Relations Act Regulations (Man.), Manitoba Labour Board Rules of Pro­cedure, Reg. 184/87, s. 4(5) [para. 14].

Manitoba Labour Board Rules of Pro­cedure - see Labour Relations Act Regu­lations (Man.), Manitoba Labour Board Rules of Procedure, Reg. 184/87.

Counsel:

Kristin L. Gibson, for the applicant;

David Lewis, for the respondent.

This application was heard before Steel, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following judgment on August 10, 1999.