Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Grain Services Union et al., (2003) 237 Sask.R. 250 (QB)

• Judge: Klebuc, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: July 16, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2003), 237 Sask.R. 250 (QB);2003 SKQB 323

Sask. Wheat Pool v. GSU (2003), 237 Sask.R. 250 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] Sask.R. TBEd. AU.021

In The Matter Of a Judicial Review pursuant to Part 52 of the Rules of the Court of Queen's Bench and the inherent supervisory jurisdiction of the Court

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool (applicant) v. Grain Services Union, Marius Bourassa and Les Kelln (respondents)

(2003 Q.B.G. No. 820; 2003 SKQB 323)

Indexed As: Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Grain Services Union et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Klebuc, J.

July 16, 2003.

Summary:

A union pension plan was amended to limit the portability of pension benefits accruing to plan members. Employees filed grievances challenging the validity of the amendment. An arbitrator allowed the grievances and declared the amendment to be of no force and effect, finding a mutual mistake as to the effect of the amendment. The employer applied for certiorari to quash the arbitrator's decision.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application and set aside the arbitrator's decision. The arbitrator was incorrect in finding mutual mistake. The evidence supported only a unilateral mistake on the union's part. Absent a finding that the employer knew or ought to have known that the union misunderstood the significance of the amendment, and did nothing to enlighten the union, the amendment was in full force and effect.

Arbitration - Topic 7803

Judicial review - General principles - Nature of review proceeding (incl. standard of review) - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that an arbitrator's interpretation of the general and common law was subject to the standard of correctness on review - An arbitrator's findings of fact and the application of the general and common law thereto were subject to the standard of patent unreasonableness - See paragraphs 10 to 13.

Mistake - Topic 241

Mistake of law - Unilateral mistake - General - A union pension plan was amended to limit the portability of pension benefits accruing to plan members - Employees filed grievances challenging the validity of the amendment - An arbitrator allowed the grievances and declared the amendment to be of no force and effect, finding a mutual mistake as to the effect of the amendment - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench set aside the arbitrator's decision - The court distinguished between mutual and unilateral mistakes - The arbitrator was incorrect in finding mutual mistake - The evidence supported only a unilateral mistake on the union's part - Absent a finding that the employer knew or ought to have known that the union misunderstood the significance of the amendment, and did nothing to enlighten the union, the amendment was in full force and effect.

Mistake - Topic 261

Mistake of law - Mutual mistake - General - [See Mistake - Topic 241 ].

Cases Noticed:

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 579 v. Bradco Construction Ltd., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 316; 153 N.R. 81; 106 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 140; 334 A.P.R. 140; 102 D.L.R.(4th) 402, refd to. [para. 11].

Dominion Stores Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union and Malley, [1982] 5 W.W.R. 245; 17 Sask.R. 22; 137 D.L.R.(3d) 524 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Mistikwa Community College v. Saskatchewan Government Employees' Association and Kennedy, [1983] 2 W.W.R. 663; 22 Sask.R. 121 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Saskatchewan Government Employees' Union v. Wascana Hospital (1988), 66 Sask.R. 56 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982 addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201; 160 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 11 Admin. L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 13].

Alampi v. Swartz et al., [1964] 1 O.R. 488; 43 D.L.R.(2d) 11 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Montreal Trust Co. v. Maley, [1993] 3 W.W.R. 225; 105 Sask.R. 195; 32 W.A.C. 195; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 257 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1993] 2 S.C.R. ix; 157 N.R. 320; 116 Sask.R. 80, refd to. [para. 18].

Big Quill Resources Inc. v. Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc., [2000] 10 W.W.R. 465; 195 Sask.R. 144 (Q.B.), affd. [2001] 7 W.W.R. 221; 203 Sask.R. 298; 240 W.A.C. 298 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Northwest Drywall and Building Supplies Ltd. and Teamsters, Local 213, Re (1990), 10 C.L.R.B.R.(2d) 180 (B.C. Ind. Rel. Council), refd to. [para. 23].

Service Employees International Union, Local 220 v. Norfolk General Hospital, [2002] O.L.R.D. No. 605, refd to. [para. 27].

International Union of Operating Engineers Local 793 v. Traugott Construction Ltd. (1984), 1 O.A.C. 381; 6 D.L.R.(4th) 122 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

Bank of Toronto v. Perkins (1883), 8 S.C.R. 603, refd to. [para. 29].

Sylvan Lake Golf & Tennis Club Ltd. v. Performance Industries Ltd. and O'Connor (No. 2), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 678; 283 N.R. 233; 299 A.R. 201; 266 W.A.C. 201; 209 D.L.R.(4th) 318; [2002] 5 W.W.R. 193, refd to. [para. 29].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown and Evans, Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada (1998) (Looseleaf) (2002 Update, Release 2) vol. 3, p. 14:2210 [para. 12].

Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston, Law of Contract (14th Ed. 2001), pp. 252, 253 [para. 15].

Fridman, G.H.L., The Law of Contract (4th Ed. 1999), pp. 270, 271 [para. 16]; 303 [para. 20].

Waddams, S.M., The Law of Contracts (4th Ed. 1999), pp. 224, 225 [para. 19]; 295 [para. 17].

Counsel:

B.W. Wirth, for the applicant;

R.A. Nordal, for the respondents.

This application was heard before Klebuc, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on July 16, 2003.