Sperling Industries Ltd. v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 254 et al., 2005 MBQB 14

• Judge: Kaufman, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: January 20, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: 2005 MBQB 14;(2005), 193 Man.R.(2d) 93 (QB)

Sperling Ind. Ltd. v. PPF (2005), 193 Man.R.(2d) 93 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.033

Sperling Industries Ltd. (applicant) v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 254 and The Manitoba Labour Board (respondents)

Sperling Industries Ltd., Guillerm (Willie) Hildebrandt, Frank Roe and Warren Nordquist (applicants) v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 254 and The Manitoba Labour Board (respondents)

(CI 03-01-34712; CI 03-01-35990; 2005 MBQB 14)

Indexed As: Sperling Industries Ltd. v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 254 et al.

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Kaufman, J.

January 20, 2005.

Summary:

An employer (Sperling) applied to quash a certificate certifying the respondent union by Manitoba Labour Board and the Board's order imposing a first collective agreement. The application included requests for interlocutory orders with respect to disclosure and an interlocutory injunction staying the agreement. Sperling filed a second application joined by three employees which sought the same remedies and raised Charter issues. Sperling also sought production of documents from the Board and union. As the first collective agreement was about to expire and there were no members left in the bargaining unit, the union undertook not to take any steps to enforce its rights under the certificate. The union was permitted to withdraw from the proceedings. The issue of mootness was raised by the parties. Sperling sought to expunge portions of an affidavit filed by the union (permitted to participate respecting mootness issue).

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench allowed the expungement motion in part and dismissed the outstanding applications as moot.

Courts - Topic 2286

Jurisdiction - Bars - Academic matters or moot issues - An employer (Sperling) applied to quash a certificate certifying the respondent union by the Manitoba Labour Board and the Board's order imposing a first collective agreement - Sperling filed a second application joined by three employees which sought the same remedies and raised Charter issues - The collective agreement was about to expire - The sole employee in the certified bargaining unit had resigned - The union undertook not to take any steps to enforce its rights under the certificate - The union was permitted to withdraw from the proceedings - The Board was still a party - The issue of mootness was raised - Sperling and the three employees intended to proceed with the application to quash the certificate due to concerns with the precedents established by the certification order and the process followed - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the outstanding applications as moot - The Board's presence on the applications (limited to its jurisdiction) would not provide the vigorous adversarial development of arguments on all aspects of the issues - There was no compelling reason to hear the case - The court declined to exercise its jurisdiction to hear the matter despite the mootness - See paragraphs 22 to 73.

Cases Noticed:

Tymkin v. Ewatski et al. (2001), 158 Man.R.(2d) 204 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

Tymkin v. Winnipeg (City) Police Service - see Tymkin v. Ewatski et al.

Beatty v. Megill-Stephenson Co. (1993), 86 Man.R.(2d) 40 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82; 57 D.L.R.(4th) 231, refd to. [para. 23].

New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. J.G. and D.V., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46; 244 N.R. 276; 216 N.B.R.(2d) 25; 552 A.P.R. 25, refd to. [para. 38].

MacKay et al. v. Manitoba, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357; 99 N.R. 116; 61 Man.R.(2d) 270, refd to. [para. 42].

Danson v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1086; 112 N.R. 362; 41 O.A.C. 250, refd to. [para. 42].

Phillips et al. v. Richard, J., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 97; 180 N.R. 1; 141 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 403 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 42].

Phillips v. Nova Scotia (Commission of Inquiry into the Westray Mine Tragedy) - see Phillips et al. v. Richard, J.

British Columbia Transit v. Council of Human Rights (B.C.) and McCabe (1991), 1 B.C.A.C. 20; 1 W.A.C. 20; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Cowling v. Brown (1990), 71 D.L.R.(4th) 713 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Counsel:

David G. Newman, Q.C., for the applicants;

Lawrence Cherniack, for the respondent, Local 254;

David T. Gisser, for the respondent, The Manitoba Labour Board;

Holly D. Penner, for the Attorney General of Manitoba.

These matters were heard by Kaufman, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following judgment on January 20, 2005.