Taylor v. Saskatoon Civic Employees' Union, Local 59, (2007) 303 Sask.R. 151 (QB)

• Judge: R.S. Smith, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: October 12, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2007), 303 Sask.R. 151 (QB);2007 SKQB 367

Taylor v. Saskatoon CEU (2007), 303 Sask.R. 151 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] Sask.R. TBEd. OC.060

David Kirk Taylor (plaintiff) v. The Saskatoon Civic Employees' Union, Local 59 (defendant)

(2004 Q.B.G. No. 943; 2007 SKQB 367)

Indexed As: Taylor v. Saskatoon Civic Employees' Union, Local 59

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

R.S. Smith, J.

October 12, 2007.

Summary:

The plaintiff was a member and officer of the Saskatoon Civic Employees' Union, Local 59. The plaintiff brought three actions for defamation against the union and union officers. The plaintiff then brought this action under the simplified procedure, claiming judgment against the union for $50,000 for reimbursement of costs incurred by him in advancing his first three actions. The plaintiff argued that he was involved in union related litigation and he was therefore entitled to the benefit of an indemnity provision in the union's bylaws. The plaintiff applied for summary judgment under Queen's Bench Rule 485. The union argued that the plaintiff misinterpreted the indemnity clause and further that the court should decline to become involved in the dispute because the union was a voluntary association and was entitled to resolve its own disputes.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the dispute was essentially contractual in nature and the court had jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff's claim. The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for summary judgment where it was plain and obvious that his claim was grounded on an interpretation of the indemnity clause that was so illogical and inconsistent with its plain wording that it could not succeed. The court also dismissed the plaintiff's action.

Labour Law - Topic 2348

Unions - Officers - Personal liability (incl. indemnity by union) - The plaintiff was a union member and officer - The plaintiff brought three actions for defamation against the union and union officers - The plaintiff then brought this action under the simplified procedure, claiming judgment against the union for $50,000 for reimbursement of costs incurred by him in advancing his first three actions - The plaintiff argued that he was involved in union related litigation and he was therefore entitled to the benefit of an indemnity provision in the union's bylaws - The plaintiff applied for summary judgment - The union argued that the plaintiff misinterpreted the indemnity clause and further that the court should decline to become involved because the union was a voluntary association and was entitled to resolve its own disputes - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the dispute was essentially contractual in nature and the court had jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff's claim - The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for summary judgment where it was plain and obvious that his claim was grounded on an interpretation of the indemnity clause that was so illogical and inconsistent with its plain wording that it could not succeed - The court also dismissed the plaintiff's action.

Labour Law - Topic 2402

Unions - Liability of unions - Actions against union - Jurisdiction - [See Labour Law - Topic 2348 ].

Cases Noticed:

Schreiner v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 59 et al., [2001] Sask. L.R.B.R. 444, refd to. [para. 15].

Schreiner (Re), [2001] S.L.R.B.D. No. 40, refd to. [para. 15].

Schreiner (Re), [2001] S.L.R.B.D. No. 76, refd to. [para. 15].

Schreiner (Re), [2005] S.L.R.B.D. No. 35, refd to. [para. 15].

Berry et al. v. Pulley et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 493; 287 N.R. 303; 158 O.A.C. 329; 2002 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 20].

Street v. B.C. School Sports, [2005] B.C.T.C. 958; 2005 BCSC 958, dist. [para. 22].

McNairn v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 179 (2004), 249 Sask.R. 111; 325 W.A.C. 111; 2004 SKCA 57, refd to. [para. 25].

Gilchrist v. Western Star Trucks Inc. et al. (2000), 133 B.C.A.C. 144; 217 W.A.C. 144; 73 B.C.L.R.(3d) 102; 2000 BCCA 70, refd to. [para. 36].

Wait et al. v. Prince Albert (City) (2002), 225 Sask.R. 113; 2002 SKQB 374, refd to. [para. 41].

Counsel:

The plaintiff for himself;

M.J. Torrens and C.G. Veeman, for the defendant.

This application was heard before R.S. Smith, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on October 12, 2007.