Sobeys Stores Ltd. v. Yeomans and Labour Standards Tribunal (N.S.) et al., (1989) 90 N.S.R.(2d) 271 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dube, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 02, 1989
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1989), 90 N.S.R.(2d) 271 (SCC)

Sobeys Stores Ltd. v. Yeomans (1989), 90 N.S.R.(2d) 271 (SCC);

    230 A.P.R. 271

MLB headnote and full text

The Attorney General of Nova Scotia, representing Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of the Province of Nova Scotia and Clifford George Yeomans and A. Ross Mitchell, Director of Labour Standards for the Province of Nova Scotia, and Stephen K. Mont, Henry Martell and Ann Hebb, in their capacity as Chairman and members respectively of the Labour Standards Tribunal (Nova Scotia) and Labour Standards Tribunal (Nova Scotia) v. Sobeys Stores Limited and Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of Manitoba and Attorney General of British Columbia

(19682)

Indexed As: Sobeys Stores Ltd. v. Yeomans and Labour Standards Tribunal (N.S.) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dube, JJ.

March 2, 1989.

Summary:

The manager of a Sobeys store was dismissed after 10 years' employment. The manager successfully complained under the Labour Standards Code that he was dismissed without just cause and was ordered reinstated with payment of arrears. Sobeys appealed. The Labour Standards Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The tribunal, pursuant to s. 67A of the Labour Code, held that the manager was dismissed without just cause. Sobeys appealed, submitting that s. 67A was ultra vires the provincial legislature as an invasion of the federal power to appoint judges under s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Appeal Division, in a judgment reported 70 N.S.R.(2d) 391; 166 A.P.R. 391, allowed the appeal and set aside the tribunal's order. The court held that s. 67A, insofar as it gave the tribunal the right to determine whether an employee was dismissed for just cause and the right to determine the sanction to be imposed on the employer, was ultra vires the province. The manager appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal. The court held that ss. 67A(2) and (3) were intra vires the province. The court reinstated the decision of the Labour Standards Tribunal.

Constitutional Law - Topic 8601

Judicial power - Appointment of judges - Constitution Act, 1867, s. 96 - General - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the three step test to be applied in determining whether powers conferred on a tribunal by provincial legislation invaded the federal power to appoint judges under s. 96 - The first step required considering the power in the historical context of s. 96 courts at the time of Confederation - The power was to be narrowly characterized; inferior courts must have had at least a shared involvement in jurisdiction with s. 96 courts at the time of Confederation (1867); to determine the historical context you consider conditions in the four original confederating provinces (N.B., N.S., Ont. and Que.); if those jurisdictions are not determinative then you consider jurisdiction in the United Kingdom at the time of Confederation - If the historical test fails, the second step is determining whether the tribunal exercises a judicial function - If so, the third step requires the jurisdiction to be appraised in its institutional setting to determine whether it is in essence adjudicative in nature - The court stated that if a tribunal exercises a jurisdiction broadly conformable to that of s. 96 courts at the time of Confederation and exercises a judicial function (i.e. fails steps one and two), s. 96 is nevertheless not violated if the tribunal does so as a necessarily incidental aspect of a broader social policy goal.

Constitutional Law - Topic 8619

Judicial power - Appointment of judges - Constitution Act, 1867, s. 96 - Provincial legislation respecting employment - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that s. 67A of the Labour Standards Code, S.N.S. 1972, c. 10, was valid provincial legislation insofar as it established tenure for employees of more than 10 years' employment - However, the court held that the provisions that gave the Labour Standards Tribunal the right to determine whether a particular employee was dismissed for "just cause" and to further determine the sanction to be imposed upon any employer breaching s. 67A, were beyond the powers of the province, since the tribunal would be performing the functions of a s. 96 court - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 67A(2) and (3) were intra vires the province - The court held that although the Labour Standards Tribunal exercised a jurisdiction broadly conformable to that of s. 96 courts at the time of Confederation; and although in doing so it performed a judicial function, it did so as a necessarily incidental aspect of the broader social policy goal of providing minimum standards of protection for non-unionized employees.

Master and Servant - Topic 7550

Dismissal of employees - Grounds - Just cause defined - Jurisdiction of provincial tribunal to determine - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 8619 above].

Cases Noticed:

Labour Relations Board of Saskatchewan v. John East Ironworks Ltd., [1949] A.C. 134 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 4, 78].

Farrah v. Attorney General of Quebec and Transport Canada, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 638; 21 N.R. 595, refd to. [para. 4].

Residential Tenancies Act of Ontario, Re, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 714; 37 N.R. 158, folld. [paras. 8, 83].

Adoption Reference, [1938] S.C.R. 398, refd to. [para. 15].

John East Ironworks and Tomko v. Labour Relations Board (Nova Scotia), [1977] 1 S.C.R. 112; 7 N.R. 317; 14 N.S.R.(2d) 191; 11 A.P.R. 191, refd to. [para. 15].

Massey-Ferguson Industries Ltd. v. Saskatchewan, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 413; 39 N.R. 308, refd to. [para. 15].

Family Relations Act of B.C., Re, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 62; 40 N.R. 206, refd to. [para. 18].

Adoption Reference; Re B.C. Family Relations Act; Seminaire de Chicoutimi v. Attorney General of Quebec, [1973] S.C.R. 681, refd to. [para. 18].

Re Cour de Magistrat de Quebec, [1965] S.C.R. 772, refd to. [para. 18].

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Knapp v. Quebec Police Commission, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 618; 28 N.R. 541, refd to. [para. 18].

Asselin v. Industries Abex Ltee., [1985] C.A. 72; 22 D.L.R.(4th) 212, refd to. [paras. 20, 82].

Dupont v. Inglis, [1958] S.C.R. 535, refd to. [para. 24].

Attorney General of Quebec v. Grondin et al., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 364; 50 N.R. 50, refd to. [para. 26].

Evans v. Employment Standards Bd. (1983), 46 B.C.L.R. 198, refd to. [para. 33].

Re Telegram Publishing Co. and Zwelling (1973), 41 D.L.R.(3d) 176 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

Attorney General of British Columbia v. McKenzie, [1965] S.C.R. 490, refd to. [para. 33].

Jones v. Edmonton Catholic School District No. 7, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 872; 11 N.R. 280; 1 A.R. 100, refd to. [para. 33].

Reference Re Proposed Legislation Concerning Leased Premises and Tenancy Agreements (1978), 89 D.L.R.(3d) 460 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Re Pepita and Doukas (1979), 101 D.L.R.(3d) 577 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Fort Massey Realties v. Rent Review Commission (1982), 50 N.S.R.(2d) 451; 98 A.P.R. 451; 132 D.L.R.(3d) 516 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Robinson v. Hindman (1800), 3 Esp. 235; 170 E.R. 599, refd to. [para. 49].

Emmens v. Elderton (1853), 13 C.B. 495; 138 E.R. 1292 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 49].

Beckham v. Drake (1849), 2 H.L.C. 579; 9 E.R. 1213 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 51].

Wilkinson v. Gaston (1846), 9 Q.B. 137; 115 E.R. 1227, refd to. [para. 51].

Hartley v. Harman (1840), 11 Ad & E. 798; 113 E.R. 617, refd to. [para. 51].

Smith v. Thompson (1849), 8 C.B. 44; 137 E.R. 424, refd to. [para. 51].

Crevier v. Attorney General of Quebec et al., [1981] 2 S.C.R. 220; 38 N.R. 541, refd to. [para. 60].

Re Mitchell and Employment Standards Division, Department of Labour (1977), 82 D.L.R.(3d) 339, refd to. [para. 66].

Central Canadian Structures Ltd. v. Director of Employment Standards Division et al., [1984] 4 W.W.R. 182; 26 Man. R.(2d) 297, refd to. [para. 66].

Scowby v. Glendinning et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 226; 70 N.R. 241; 51 Sask. R. 208, refd to. [para. 74].

Statutes Noticed:

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 96 [para. 4].

Labour Standards Code, S.N.S. 1972, c. 10, sect. 18(2), sect. 19(1), sect. 19(2), sect. 19(3), sect. 19(5), sect. 20, sect. 24, sect. 67A [para. 5].

Supreme Court and its Officers, An Act Respecting, R.S.N.S. 1864, c. 123, sect. 1 [para. 41].

Halifax City Charter, S.N.S. 1864, c. 81, sect. 115 [para. 41].

Justices of the Peace in Civil Cases, An Act Respecting the Jurisdiction of, R.S.N.S. 1864, c. 128, sect. 1 [para. 41].

Stipendiary or Police Magistrates, An Act Respecting, R.S.N.S. 1864, c. 129, sect. 18 [para. 41].

Municipalities, An Act Respecting, R.S.N.S. 1864, c. 133, sect. 64, sect. 96, sect. 97, sect. 98, sect. 99, sect. 100, sect. 101, sect. 102, sect. 103, sect. 104, sect. 105, sect. 106, sect. 107, sect. 108, sect. 109 [para. 41]; sect. 123 [para. 43].

Shipping and Seamen, An Act Respecting, R.S.N.S. 1864, c. 75, sect. 12, sect. 18 [para. 42].

Masters, Apprentices and Servants, An Act Respecting, R.S.N.S. 1864, c. 122, sect. 11, sect. 12, sect. 13, sect 14, sect. 15 [para. 42].

Seamen, An Act Respecting Regulations for, R.S.N.B. 1854, c. 86, sect. 10 [para. 44].

Shipping Seamen at the Port of Saint John, An Act Respecting Regulations for, R.S.N.B. 1854, c. 87, sect. 9 [para. 44].

Justices in Civil Suits, An Act Respecting the Jurisdiction of, R.S.N.B. 1854, c. 137, sect. 1 [para. 44].

Master and Servant, An Act Respecting, C.S.U.C. 1859, c. 75, sect. 3, sect. 4, sect. 7, sect. 12 [para. 45].

Division Courts, An Act Respecting, C.S.U.C. 1859, c. 19, sect. 55 [para. 46].

Masters and Servants in Country Parts, An Act Respecting, C.S.L.C. 1861, c. 27, sect. 5 [para. 47].

Master and Servant Act (1747), 20 Geo. 2, c. 19, generally [para. 49].

Master and Servant Act (1823), 4 Geo. 4, c. 34, generally [para. 49].

Master and Servant Act (1867), 30 & 31 Vict., c. 141, generally [para. 49].

County Courts Act, 9 & 10 Vict., c. 95, sect. 58 [para. 50].

Employers and Workmen Act (1875), 38 & 39 Vict., c. 90, sect. 4 [para. 50].

Vacation Pay Act, R.S.N.S. 1967, c. 322, generally [para. 63].

Industrial Standards Act, R.S.N.S. 1967, c. 142, generally [para. 63].

Minimum Wage Act, R.S.N.S. 1967, c. 186, generally [para. 63].

Equal Pay Act, S.N.S. 1969, c. 8, generally [para. 63].

Limitation of Hours of Labour Act, R.S.N.S. 1954, c. 154, generally [para. 63].

Employment of Children Act, R.S.N.S. 1967, c. 88 [para. 63].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Pepin, The Problem of Section 96 of the Constitution Act 1867, p. 236 [para. 4].

Christie, Employment Law in Canada, pp. 250-251, 444-445 [para. 45].

Freedland, The Contract of Employment (1976), pp. 21-23 [para. 49].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (2nd Ed. 1985), pp. 150-152 [para. 4].

The Courts and the Charter (Beckton and MacKay, Eds.), pp. 225-227 [para. 4].

Holdsworth, W.A., The Law of Master and Servant (1876), pp. 135-136 [para. 50].

Labour Law: Cases, Materials and Commentary (4th Ed.), p. 1 [para. 64].

England, G., Unjust Dismissal in the Federal Jurisdiction: The First Three Years (1982), 12 Man. L.J. 9, p. 10 [para. 73].

Summers, Clyde W., Individual Protection Against Unjust Dismissal: Time for a Statute (1976), 62 Va. L. Rev. 481, generally [para. 73].

Hebert, Gerard, and Gilles Trudeau, Les normes minimales du travail au Canada et au Quebec, p. 168 [para. 75].

Gagnon, Robert P., Louis Lebel and Pierre Verge, Droit du travail, pp. 15, 19 [para. 77].

Counsel:

Rheinhold M. Endres and Alison Scott, for the Attorney General of Nova Scotia;

Peter McLellan and Ian Holloway, for the appellants;

David A Miller and David P.S. Farrar, for the respondent;

James M. Mabbutt, for the Attorney General of Canada;

Jean Bouchard, for the Attorney General of Quebec;

Valerie J. Matthews Lemieux, for the Attorney General of Manitoba;

Robert Vick Farley, for the Attorney General of British Columbia.

Solicitors of Record:

Department of Attorney General, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the appellant Attorney General of Nova Scotia;

C. Peter McLellan and Ian C. Holloway, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the appellants Clifford George Yeomans et al.;

Stewart, MacKeen & Covert, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the respondent;

Frank Iacobucci, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada;

Attorney General of Quebec, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec;

Tanner Elton, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervener the Attorney General of Manitoba;

Attorney General of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia, for the intervener the Attorney General of British Columbia.

This appeal was heard on February 5, 1988, before Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On March 2, 1989, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Wilson, J. (Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre and Lamer, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 69;

La Forest, J. (Beetz and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 70 to 86.

Estey and Le Dain, JJ., did not take part in the judgment.