Tait v. New Brunswick, (2013) 412 N.B.R.(2d) 395 (CA)
Judge | Robertson, Quigg and Green, JJ.A. |
Court | Court of Appeal (New Brunswick) |
Case Date | November 01, 2013 |
Jurisdiction | New Brunswick |
Citations | (2013), 412 N.B.R.(2d) 395 (CA);2013 NBCA 71 |
Tait v. N.B. (2013), 412 N.B.R.(2d) 395 (CA);
412 R.N.-B.(2e) 395; 1070 A.P.R. 395
MLB headnote and full text
Sommaire et texte intégral
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
.........................
Temp. Cite: [2013] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.031
Renvoi temp.: [2013] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.031
Trent Tait (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of New Brunswick, as Represented by Board of Management on behalf of Ambulance NB (respondent)
(113-12-CA; 2013 NBCA 71)
Indexed As: Tait v. New Brunswick
Répertorié: Tait v. New Brunswick
New Brunswick Court of Appeal
Robertson, Quigg and Green, JJ.A.
December 12, 2013.
Summary:
Résumé:
Tait's employment as a casual paramedic was terminated during his probationary period. The union grieved. An arbitrator concluded, on a preliminary objection, that he did not have jurisdiction to hear the grievance and dismissed it. The union declined to seek judicial review. Representing himself, Tait applied for judicial review.
The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a decision reported at (2012), 391 N.B.R.(2d) 262; 1013 A.P.R. 262, dismissed the application. Tait had no standing to bring the application. Alternatively, the arbitrator's decision respecting the preliminary objection was reasonable. Tait appealed.
The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Labour Law - Topic 2706
Unions - Duties - To represent members of bargaining unit - [See Labour Law - Topic 9302 ].
Labour Law - Topic 9302
Public service labour relations - Judicial review - General - Status or standing - Tait's employment as a casual paramedic was terminated during his probationary period - The union grieved - An arbitrator concluded, on a preliminary objection, that he did not have jurisdiction to hear the grievance and dismissed it - The union declined to seek judicial review - Representing himself, Tait applied for judicial review - Rideout, J., dismissed the application on the basis that Tait lacked standing to bring it - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed Tait's appeal - The law was clear - As a general rule, when a union unsuccessfully grieved the discipline or discharge of a bargaining unit member and the union decided not to seek review, the member was denied standing to do so - This flowed naturally from the realization that the union and the employer were parties to the collective agreement and that individual employees had no independent contractual status - The court rejected Tait's argument that the union's representation of him was so deficient that he should be granted standing - The fact that a union did not advance an argument that the employee deemed relevant was not a sufficient basis on which to acquire standing based on an allegation of inadequate representation.
Droit du travail - Cote 2706
Syndicats - Obligations - Représentation des membres de l'unité de négociation - [Voir Labour Law - Topic 2706 ].
Droit du travail - Cote 9302
Relations de travail dans les services publics - Contrôle judiciaire - Généralités - Qualité pour agir - [Voir Labour Law - Topic 9302 ].
Cases Noticed:
Noël v. Société d'énergie de la Baie James, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 207; 271 N.R. 304; 2001 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 3].
Yee v. Trent University, 2010 ONSC 3307, refd to. [para. 5].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Adams, George W., Canadian Labour Law (2nd Ed. 1993) (Looseleaf), pp. 4.1660 [para. 4]; 4.1690 [para. 6].
Counsel:
Avocats:
Julian C. Williams, for the appellant;
Keith Mullin, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on November 1, 2013, by Robertson, Quigg and Green, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. On December 12, 2013, Robertson, J.A., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the court.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Arora v. Canadian National Railway,
...union”: Alford v. Government of Yukon, 2006 YKCA 9 at para. 14. See also: Tait v. New Brunswick (Board of Management), 2013 NBCA 71 at paras. 4–5; Young v. Clarke, 2018 NLCA 67 at para. 6; Ayangma v. Université de Moncton, Moncton Campus et al., 2019 N......
-
Mengué Pelletier v. The Province of New Brunswick (The Minister of Social Development),
...Tait v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of New Brunswick, as represented by Board of Management on behalf of Ambulance NB, 2013 NBCA 71, 412 N.B.R. (2d) 395 , Robertson J.A. explained the general rule respecting a grievor’s standing: The law is clear. As a general rule, when......
-
AYANGMA v. UNIVERSITÉ DE MONCTON, MONCTON CAMPUS et. al, 2019 NBQB 31
...That is not the case here. [26] Mr. Ayangma tries desperately to persuade the Court that the decisions in Tait v. Her Majesty the Queen 2013 NBCA 71 and Migneault v. New Brunswick 2016 NBCA 52 are distinguishable in this case because the flagrant and contemptuous conduct of the Association ......
-
AYANGMA c. UNIVERSITÉ DE MONCTON, CAMPUS DE MONCTON et. al,
...M. Ayangma tente désespérément de convaincre le tribunal que les décisions de Tait v. Her Majesty the Queen 2013 NBCA 71 et Migneault v. New Brunswick 2016 NBCA 52 se distinguent en l’espèce en raison de la conduite flagrante et méprisable de l ......
-
Arora v. Canadian National Railway,
...union”: Alford v. Government of Yukon, 2006 YKCA 9 at para. 14. See also: Tait v. New Brunswick (Board of Management), 2013 NBCA 71 at paras. 4–5; Young v. Clarke, 2018 NLCA 67 at para. 6; Ayangma v. Université de Moncton, Moncton Campus et al., 2019 N......
-
Mengué Pelletier v. The Province of New Brunswick (The Minister of Social Development),
...Tait v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of New Brunswick, as represented by Board of Management on behalf of Ambulance NB, 2013 NBCA 71, 412 N.B.R. (2d) 395 , Robertson J.A. explained the general rule respecting a grievor’s standing: The law is clear. As a general rule, when......
-
AYANGMA v. UNIVERSITÉ DE MONCTON, MONCTON CAMPUS et. al, 2019 NBQB 31
...That is not the case here. [26] Mr. Ayangma tries desperately to persuade the Court that the decisions in Tait v. Her Majesty the Queen 2013 NBCA 71 and Migneault v. New Brunswick 2016 NBCA 52 are distinguishable in this case because the flagrant and contemptuous conduct of the Association ......
-
AYANGMA c. UNIVERSITÉ DE MONCTON, CAMPUS DE MONCTON et. al,
...M. Ayangma tente désespérément de convaincre le tribunal que les décisions de Tait v. Her Majesty the Queen 2013 NBCA 71 et Migneault v. New Brunswick 2016 NBCA 52 se distinguent en l’espèce en raison de la conduite flagrante et méprisable de l ......