Rollheiser v. Lockwood et al., (2006) 279 Sask.R. 113 (CA)

• Judge: Richard, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: May 23, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2006), 279 Sask.R. 113 (CA);2006 SKCA 57

Rollheiser v. Lockwood (2006), 279 Sask.R. 113 (CA);

    372 W.A.C. 113

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] Sask.R. TBEd. JN.058

Sharon Lockwood (prospective appellant/defendant) v. Genevieve Rollheiser (prospective respondent/plaintiff) and Gordon Twigg, Lisa Olson, Brian Dueck, Edward Singbeil, Dan Wiks, Tess Van Kampen and Unknown Person 1 (prospective respondents/defendants)

(1291; 2006 SKCA 57)

Indexed As: Rollheiser v. Lockwood et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Richard, J.A.

May 23, 2006.

Summary:

One of several defendants unsuccessfully applied to have the plaintiff's statement of claim struck as against her. The defendant sought leave to appeal.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Richard, J.A., denied leave to appeal, as the matter lacked "sufficient merit" to warrant granting leave.

Labour Law - Topic 2402

Unions - Liability of unions - Actions against union - Jurisdiction - The plaintiff sued various defendants for alleged harassment and malicious treatment in the workplace - The claim against the defendant Lockwood (union representative) alleged conspiracy, defamation, intentional infliction of mental suffering and intentional interference with contractual relations and economic interests - Lockwood applied to strike the statement of claim as against her, submitting that the Labour Relations Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the claim, relying on s. 25.1 of the Trade Union Act, which dealt with an employee's right to be fairly represented in grievance or arbitration proceedings by her trade union - The trial judge refused to strike the claim, finding that s. 25.1 did not apply to the claim - Section 25.1 did not bring every dispute with a union or a union representative within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Richard, J.A., denied Lockwood leave to appeal on the ground that her argument lacked sufficient merit to warrant hearing the appeal.

Labour Law - Topic 7205

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - Civil action - Jurisdiction - [See Labour Law - Topic 2402 ].

Practice - Topic 8875

Appeals - Leave to appeal - From allowance or dismissal of interlocutory application - [See Labour Law - Topic 2402 ].

Cases Noticed:

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 3].

Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Saskatchewan (2002), 227 Sask.R. 121; 287 W.A.C. 121 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

McNairn v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 179 (2004), 249 Sask.R. 111; 325 W.A.C. 111; 240 D.L.R.(4th) 358 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Krasko v. Kuling et al. (2004), 256 Sask.R. 143 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Statutes Noticed:

Trade Union Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. T-17, sect. 25.1 [para. 5].

Counsel:

K. Lily Arvanitis-Ballantyne, for Sharon Lockwood (on conference);

Greg Curtis, for Genevieve Rollheiser (on conference);

Robert J. Gibbings, Q.C., for Twigg, Olson, Dueck, Singbeil, Wiks, Van Kampen and Unknown Person 1 (on conference).

This application for leave to appeal was heard in Chambers before Richard, J.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, who delivered the following judgment on May 23, 2006.