Symington v. Halifax (Regional Municipality) et al., 2007 NSCA 90

• Judge: MacDonald, C.J.N.S., Cromwell and Fichaud, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: June 07, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2007 NSCA 90;(2007), 258 N.S.R.(2d) 69 (CA)

Symington v. Halifax (2007), 258 N.S.R.(2d) 69 (CA);

    824 A.P.R. 69

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. AU.015

James Symington (appellant) v. Halifax Regional Municipality, Halifax Regional Police Service, Tim Moser and Fred Sanford (respondents) and Municipal Association of Police Personnel (intervenor)

(CA 272956; 2007 NSCA 90)

Indexed As: Symington v. Halifax (Regional Municipality) et al.

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

MacDonald, C.J.N.S., Cromwell and Fichaud, JJ.A.

August 22, 2007.

Summary:

Disciplinary complaints against a police officer, Symington, were resolved in his favour. A criminal investigation concerning whether he had committed fraud was eventually dropped. Symington's complaints under the Police Act against various members of his employer were dismissed. He commenced an action against the defendants alleging, inter alia, malicious prosecution, defamation, negligence and intentional infliction of mental suffering. The defendants applied to strike the statement of claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at 247 N.S.R.(2d) 314; 785 A.P.R. 314 allowed the application. The claims in the action were in their "essential characteristics" matters of a police discipline nature and were addressed under the provisions of the Police Act as incorporated by a collective agreement. Symington appealed. The Maritime Association of Police Personnel was granted leave to intervene.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part to permit Symington to pursue his cause of action for malicious prosecution. In all other respects, the appeal was dismissed.

Editor's Note: for a related case see 202 N.S.R.(2d) 296; 632 A.P.R. 296.

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided by prior proceedings - Disciplinary complaints against a police officer, Symington, were resolved in his favour - A criminal investigation concerning whether he had committed fraud was eventually dropped - Symington's complaints under the Police Act against various members of his employer were dismissed - He commenced an action against the defendants alleging, inter alia, malicious prosecution, defamation, negligence and intentional infliction of mental suffering - The defendants applied to strike the statement of claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action - The application judge allowed the application - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed Symington's appeal in part, finding that the claim for malicious prosecution for the alleged abuse of the criminal process should be allowed to continue - The court considered the defendants' arguments that the dismissal of Symington's complaints under Police Act Regulations against other police officers constituted issue estoppel or, alternatively, that relitigation of those issues would be an abuse of process - The court concluded that this was not an appropriate case where issue estoppel or the doctrine of abuse of process should be applied to bar Symington's malicious prosecution claim - See paragraphs 114 to 126.

Labour Law - Topic 6906

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Civil action - Jurisdiction - Disciplinary complaints against a police officer, Symington, were resolved in his favour - A criminal investigation concerning whether he had committed fraud was eventually dropped - Symington's complaints under the Police Act against various members of his employer were dismissed - He commenced an action against the defendants alleging, inter alia, malicious prosecution, defamation, negligence and intentional infliction of mental suffering - The defendants applied to strike the statement of claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action - The application judge allowed the application - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed Symington's appeal in part - The essential character of the dispute was whether Symington was truly entitled to sick leave or had abused it - With one exception, Symington's claims arose under the collective agreement and could have been decided by an arbitrator - This was not a case in which the court would exercise its residual discretion to hear those arbitrable claims - The one exception, Symington's action for malicious prosecution for the alleged abuse of the criminal process, was not a dispute arising from the collective agreement and was not excluded by the Police Act - The collective agreement neither incorporated the criminal regime into labour relations nor sheltered the defendants from the consequences of abuse of the criminal process - See paragraphs 72 to 113.

Labour Law - Topic 7201

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - Civil action - When available - [See Labour Law - Topic 6906 ].

Police - Topic 5221

Actions against police - For malicious prosecution - General - [See Labour Law - Topic 6906 ].

Cases Noticed:

Stoffman v. Ontario Veterinary Association (1990), 46 O.A.C. 232; 73 O.R.(2d) 737 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 23].

Bainard et al. v. Toronto Police Services Board et al., [2002] O.T.C. 504 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 23].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 34].

Regina Police Association Inc. and Shotton v. Board of Police Commissioners of Regina, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 360; 251 N.R. 16; 189 Sask.R. 23; 216 W.A.C. 23, refd to. [para. 37].

Vaughan v. Canada, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 146; 331 N.R. 64, refd to. [para. 37].

Social Services Administration Board (Parry Sound District) v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 324 et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 157; 308 N.R. 271; 177 O.A.C. 235, refd to. [para. 46].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 50].

Cherubini Metal Works Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) et al. (2007), 253 N.S.R.(2d) 144; 807 A.P.R. 144; 2007 NSCA 38, refd to. [para. 52].

Abbott et al. v. Collins et al. (2003), 172 O.A.C. 243; 227 D.L.R.(4th) 617 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

Danilov v. Atomic Energy Control Board (1999), 125 O.A.C. 130 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2000), 260 N.R. 399; 141 O.A.C. 198 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 52].

Phillips v. Harrison (2000), 153 Man.R.(2d) 1; 238 W.A.C. 1; 196 D.L.R.(4th) 69 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

Guenette et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2002), 162 O.A.C. 371; 216 D.L.R.(4th) 410 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

L & B Electric Ltd. v. Oickle (2006), 242 N.S.R.(2d) 356; 770 A.P.R. 356; 2006 NSCA 41, refd to. [para. 53].

Cluett v. Metro Computerized Bookkeeping Ltd. et al. (2005), 233 N.S.R.(2d) 237; 739 A.P.R. 237; 2005 NSCA 84, refd to. [para. 53].

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, refd to. [para. 55].

Gendron v. Supply and Services Union of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Local 50057 et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1298; 109 N.R. 321; 66 Man.R.(2d) 81, refd to. [para. 55].

New Brunswick v. O'Leary, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 967; 183 N.R. 229; 163 N.B.R.(2d) 97; 419 A.P.R. 97, refd to. [para. 57].

Allen et al. v. Alberta et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 128; 301 N.R. 174; 327 A.R. 1; 296 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 57].

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees et al. v. Lethbridge Community College, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 727; 319 N.R. 201; 348 A.R. 1; 321 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 57].

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. 58].

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (Que.) v. Quebec (Attorney General) et al., [2004] 2 S.C.R. 185; 321 N.R. 290; 2004 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 66].

Morin - see Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (Que.) v. Quebec (Attorney General) et al. (2004 SCC 39).

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (Que.) v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 223; 321 N.R. 335; 2004 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 68].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Quebec (Human Rights Tribunal) - see Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (Que.) v. Quebec (Attorney General) (2004 SCC 40).

House of Commons et al. v. Vaid et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 667; 333 N.R. 314, refd to. [para. 68].

Bisaillon v. Concordia University, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 666; 348 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 69].

Pleau v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1999), 181 N.S.R.(2d) 356; 560 A.P.R. 356; 1999 NSCA 159, leave to appeal denied (2000), 262 N.R. 399; 190 N.S.R.(2d) 200; 594 A.P.R. 200 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 70].

Connolly v. Canada Post Corp. et al. (2005), 232 N.S.R.(2d) 5; 737 A.P.R. 5; 2005 NSCA 55, refd to. [para. 70].

Adams v. Cusack et al. (2006), 242 N.S.R.(2d) 66; 770 A.P.R. 66; 2006 NSCA 9, refd to. [para. 70].

Edmonton Police Association et al. v. Edmonton (City) (2007), 404 A.R. 262; 394 W.A.C. 262; 2007 ABCA 147, refd to. [para. 77].

Dwyer v. Canada Post Corp., [1997] O.A.C. Uned. 237; 1997 CanLII 1110 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 85].

Giorno v. Pappas et al. (1999), 117 O.A.C. 187; 170 D.L.R.(4th) 160 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 85].

Haight-Smith v. Neden et al. (2002), 164 B.C.A.C. 236; 268 W.A.C. 236; 211 D.L.R.(4th) 370 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2002), 303 N.R. 394; 185 B.C.A.C. 160; 303 W.A.C. 160 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 85].

Sloan v. Board of Education of York Region, [2000] O.A.C. Uned. 175 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2000), 264 N.R. 194; 145 O.A.C. 200 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 85].

Ruscetta v. Graham et al. (1998), 114 O.A.C. 320 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied [1998] 2 S.C.R. x; 235 N.R. 200; 120 O.A.C. 196, refd to. [para. 85].

Bhaduria v. Board of Education of Toronto et al. (1999), 117 O.A.C. 356; 173 D.L.R.(4th) 382 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1999), 252 N.R. 193; 133 O.A.C. 197 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 85].

Piko v. Hudson's Bay Co. (1998), 116 O.A.C. 92; 41 O.R.(3d) 729 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1999), 247 N.R. 197; 127 O.A.C. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 94].

Graham v. Strait Crossing Inc. (1999), 171 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 116; 525 A.P.R. 116; 170 D.L.R.(4th) 152 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 94].

Odhavji Estate et al. v. Woodhouse et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263; 312 N.R. 305; 180 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 109].

Nelles v. Ontario et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170; 98 N.R. 321; 35 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 109].

Smith v. Canada (2007), 316 N.B.R.(2d) 180; 816 A.P.R. 180; 2007 NBCA 58, refd to. [para. 113].

Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 460; 272 N.R. 1; 149 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 116].

Copage et al. v. Annapolis Valley Indian Band (2004), 228 N.S.R.(2d) 284; 723 A.P.R. 284; 2004 NSCA 147, refd to. [para. 116].

Wright v. Nova Scotia Public Service Long Term Disability Plan Trust Fund (2006), 246 N.S.R.(2d) 308; 780 A.P.R. 308; 272 D.L.R.(4th) 635 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 116].

Toronto (City) et al. v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291, refd to. [para. 124].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Donald J.M., and Beatty, David M., Canadian Labour Arbitration (4th Ed. 2006) (Looseleaf), vol. 1, paras. 4:2322 to 4:2326 [para. 84].

Counsel:

Stephen J. Moreau, for the appellant;

Daniel W. Ingersoll and W. Harry Thurlow, for the respondents;

Ronald A. Pink, Q.C., for the intervenor.

This appeal was heard on June 7, 2007, in Halifax, N.S., by MacDonald, C.J.N.S., Cromwell and Fichaud, JJ.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. Fichaud, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court on August 22, 2007.