Snook v. Canada Post et al., 2015 NLCA 49

• Judge: Rowe, White and Hoegg, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Newfoundland)
• Case Date: May 12, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: 2015 NLCA 49;(2015), 371 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 63 (NLCA)

Snook v. Can. Post (2015), 371 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 63 (NLCA);

    1156 A.P.R. 63

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. NO.006

Canada Post Corporation, David Parsons and Catherine Reader (intended appellants) v. Maria Snook (intended first respondent) and Canadian Union of Postal Workers, Craig Dyer and James Gallant (intended second respondents)

(14/101)

Canadian Union of Postal Workers, Craig Dyer and James Gallant (intended appellants) v. Maria Snook (intended first respondent) and Canada Post Corporation, David Parsons and Catherine Reader (intended second respondents)

(14/102; 2015 NLCA 49)

Indexed As: Snook v. Canada Post et al.

Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court

Court of Appeal

Rowe, White and Hoegg, JJ.A.

October 26, 2015.

Summary:

Snook was employed as a letter carrier for Canada Post. She commenced an action against Canada Post, her union and others, alleging wrongful dismissal and harassment following disputes with respect to her medical restrictions. The defendants applied to set aside the statement of claim on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate as the matters were subject to arbitration and/or jurisdiction under the Canada Labour Code.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (General), in a decision reported at (2014), 361 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 308; 1122 A.P.R. 308, held that all of Snook's claims were arbitrable and that it was bound to decline jurisdiction. However, it was possible that an arbitration might leave a residual issue for the court to determine. Accordingly, instead of setting aside the statement of claim, the court issued a stay of proceedings. The defendants applied for leave to appeal and appealed.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal held that leave to appeal was not required. The court allowed the appeals and dismissed Snook's action.

Estoppel - Topic 379

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Cause of action - [See Practice - Topic 5277 ].

Estoppel - Topic 396

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - In labour relations proceedings - [See Practice - Topic 5277 ].

Practice - Topic 5277

Trials - General - Stay of proceedings - When available - Snook commenced an action against her employer, her union and others, alleging wrongful dismissal and harassment following disputes with respect to her medical restrictions - The defendants applied to set aside the statement of claim on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate as the matters were subject to arbitration and/or jurisdiction under the Canada Labour Code - Thompson, J., held that all of Snook's claims were arbitrable and that he was bound to decline jurisdiction - However, it was possible that an arbitration might leave a residual issue for the court to determine - Accordingly, instead of setting aside the statement of claim, Thompson, J., issued a stay of proceedings - The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal allowed the defendants' appeal and dismissed Snook's action - The effect of Thompson, J.'s decision was to protect Snook from cause-of-action estoppel - Unlike most unsuccessful litigants, Snook was being granted an opportunity to try again using facts that she should have pleaded the first time around - The possibility that Snook might have a claim later was no reason not to strike her claim now - The only effect of the stay was to exempt Snook from the due diligence requirement when no reasons for an exemption were demonstrated - See paragraphs 18 to 39.

Practice - Topic 5359.1

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General and want of prosecution - Lack of jurisdiction - [See Practice - Topic 5277 ].

Practice - Topic 5729

Judgments and orders - Final judgments and orders - What constitutes - [See Practice - Topic 8871.2 ].

Practice - Topic 8871.2

Appeals - Leave to appeal - Whether required - Snook commenced an action against her employer, her union and others, alleging wrongful dismissal and harassment following disputes with respect to her medical restrictions - The defendants applied to set aside the statement of claim on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate as the matters were subject to arbitration and/or jurisdiction under the Canada Labour Code - Thompson, J., held that all of Snook's claims were arbitrable and that he was bound to decline jurisdiction - However, it was possible that an arbitration might leave a residual issue for the court to determine - Accordingly, instead of setting aside the statement of claim, Thompson, J., issued a stay of proceedings - The defendants applied for leave to appeal - The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal held that Thompson, J.'s order was final and therefore leave to appeal was not required - Most of the real matter in the dispute would go before a labour arbitrator - The action had come to a halt and might never resume - See paragraphs 11 to 15.

Labour Law - Topic 9655

Public service labour relations - Collective agreement - Civil action - Jurisdiction - [See Practice - Topic 5277 ].

Cases Noticed:

United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1252 Fishermen's Union v. Cashin et al. (1994), 124 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 201; 384 A.P.R. 201 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Langor v. Spurrell (1997), 157 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 301; 486 A.P.R. 301 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Carroll (Re) - see Kent v. Kent.

Kent v. Kent (2010), 301 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 152; 932 A.P.R. 152; 2010 NLCA 53, refd to. [para. 13].

Tremblett v. Tremblett (2013), 340 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 135; 1057 A.P.R. 135; 2013 NLCA 53, refd to. [para. 16].

Moray Seafoods Ltd. v. Nasco Canada Ltd. et al. (2006), 256 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 219; 773 A.P.R. 219; 2006 NLCA 29, refd to. [para. 17].

Nordica Foods A/S et al. v. Eimskip, USA Icelandic Steamship Inc. et al. (2015), 365 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 291; 1138 A.P.R. 291; 2015 NLCA 17, refd to. [para. 17].

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, consd. [para. 18].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, consd. [para. 19].

Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 495; 198 N.R. 161; 78 B.C.A.C. 162; 128 W.A.C. 162, refd to. [para. 25].

Piko v. Hudson's Bay Co. (1998), 116 O.A.C. 92 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Campbell et al. v. Baldwin Agency Security and Investigations Inc., [1999] O.T.C. 62; 93 A.C.W.S.(3d) 276 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 26].

Bentley v. Leonard et al. (1997), 40 O.T.C. 130; 35 C.C.E.L.(2d) 293 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 26].

Guardian Insurance Company of Canada v. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corp. of St. John's - see John Doe v. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corp. of St. John's

John Doe v. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corp. of St. John's (2013), 343 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 68; 1066 A.P.R. 68; 2013 NLCA 62, refd to. [para. 31].

Hoque v. Montreal Trust Co. of Canada et al. (1997), 162 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 485 A.P.R. 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Counsel:

Michelle A. Willette, for Canada Post Corp., David Parsons and Catherine Reader;

Maria Snook, on her own behalf;

David J. Roberts, for Canadian Union of Postal Workers, Craig Dyer and James Gallant.

These appeals were heard on May 12, 2015, before Rowe, White and Hoegg, JJ.A., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal. White, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court on October 26, 2015.