Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) et al.

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Judge: Carthy, Goudge and O'Connor, JJ.A.
• Date: 13 July 2000
• Citation: (2000), 135 O.A.C. 115 (CA)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)

Sun Life v. NAATGWU (2000), 135 O.A.C. 115 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] O.A.C. TBEd. JL.020

Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (applicant/respondent in appeal) v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) (respondent/appellant) and Honeywell Limited/Aerospace Division and Morton G. Mitchnick (respondents/respondents in appeal)

(C31351)

Indexed As: Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Carthy, Goudge and O'Connor, JJ.A.

July 13, 2000.

Summary:

A unionized employee sued an insurer for refusing his claim for long term disability benefits, which the employer was required to maintain under the collective agreement. The employee grieved, claiming entitlement to the benefits. The employer contested the arbitrator's jurisdiction, asserting that it had complied with its contractual obligations to maintain the insurance and that the em­ployee's complaint was with the insurer. The arbitrator held that he had exclusive jurisdic­tion to hear the dispute and joined the in­surer as a party defendant. The employer applied for judicial review.

The Ontario Divisional Court, in a judg­ment not reported in this series of reports, allowed the application and quashed the arbitrator's decision. The union appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Editor's Note: for related case see London Life Insurance Co. v. Dubreuil Brothers Employees Association et al. (2000), 134 O.A.C. 382.

Administrative Law - Topic 3202

Judicial review - Scope of review - A unionized employee grieved for entitlement to long term disability benefits under an insurance policy which the collective agreement required the employer to main­tain - At arbitration, the employer asserted that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction be­cause the employer had complied with its contractual obligations and the employee's complaint was with the insurer - The arbi­trator held that it had jurisdiction under the common law - On a judicial review ap­plication, the trial judge quashed the ar­bitrator's decision - The union appealed -The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the appropriate standard of review was that of correctness - See paragraph 7.

Arbitration - Topic 7950

Judicial review - Jurisdiction of arbitrator -General - [See Labour Law - Topic 7038 ].

Labour Law - Topic 7038

Industrial relations - Collective agreement -Enforcement - Arbitration - General - Matters not arbitrable - A unionized em­ployee grieved for entitlement to long term disability benefits under an insurance policy, which the collective agreement required the employer to maintain - The employer asserted that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction because the employer had maintained the insurance and the em­ployee's complaint was with the insurer - The arbitrator held that it had jurisdiction under the common law and joined the insurer as a defendant - On a judicial review application, the trial judge held that the claim was inarbitrable and the ar­bitrator lacked jurisdiction - The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision - The arbitrator's exclusive juris­diction was not extended to an employee's and insurer's dispute over payable benefits under the insurance policy - The arbitrator erred in adding the insurer as a defendant -See paragraphs 8 to 9.

Labour Law - Topic 7041

Industrial relations - Collective agreement -Enforcement - Arbitration - Jurisdiction or powers of arbitrator or board - General - [See Labour Law - Topic 7038 ].

Cases Noticed:

Pilon v. International Minerals and Chem­ical Corp. (Canada) Ltd. et al. (1996), 97 O.A.C. 286; 31 O.R.(3d) 210 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

Counsel:

Judith Allen, for the appellant;

Christopher Riggs, for the respondent, Sun Life Assurance Co.;

Mark Contini, for the respondent, Honey­well Ltd./Aerospace Division.

This appeal was heard on December 20 and 21, 2000, by Carthy, Goudge and O'Connor, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Goudge, J.A., delivered the fol­lowing decision for the court on July 13, 2000.