Telecommunication Employees Association of Manitoba Inc. et al. v. Manitoba Telecom Services Inc. et al., 2007 MBCA 85

JudgeScott, C.J.M., Monnin and Hamilton, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Manitoba)
Case DateJune 25, 2007
JurisdictionManitoba
Citations2007 MBCA 85;(2007), 214 Man.R.(2d) 284 (CA)

TEA v. Telecom Services Inc. (2007), 214 Man.R.(2d) 284 (CA);

      395 W.A.C. 284

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.004

Telecommunication Employees Association of Manitoba Inc., Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 5 and Local 7, International Brotherhood of Electric Workers, Local Union 435 and Harry Restall, on his own behalf and on behalf of certain retired employees or the widows/widowers thereof of Manitoba Telecom Services Inc., MTS Communications Inc., MTS Mobility Inc. and MTS Advanced Inc. and Larry Trach, on his own behalf and on behalf of all Unionized Employees of Manitoba Telecom Services Inc., MTS Communications Inc., MTS Mobility Inc. and MTS Advanced Inc. (plaintiffs/respondents) v. Manitoba Telecom Services Inc., MTS Communications Inc., MTS Mobility Inc. and MTS Advanced Inc., Jon Singleton and Clifford Fox (defendants/appellants)

(AI 06-30-06533; AI 06-30-06573; 2007 MBCA 85)

Indexed As: Telecommunication Employees Association of Manitoba Inc. et al. v. Manitoba Telecom Services Inc. et al.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Scott, C.J.M., Monnin and Hamilton, JJ.A.

June 25, 2007.

Summary:

Manitoba Telecom Services Inc. et al. (MTS) privatized. The plaintiffs alleged that MTS did not provide them with benefits that were equivalent in value to what employees and/or retirees enjoyed under their old plan, as required by the Manitoba Telephone System Reorganization and Consequential Amendments Act. The plaintiffs sued MTS, the Provincial Auditor (Singleton) and an independent actuary (Fox) who had determined that MTS had provided equivalent benefits. The defendants applied for summary judgment.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 206 Man.R.(2d) 39, dismissed the application. All of the defendants appealed from the rejection of their motions for summary judgment dismissing a part of the plaintiffs' action on the basis that there was no genuine issue for trial. As well, Singleton and Fox argued that they were not, in any event, necessary parties to the proceedings.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants' appeal respecting its motion for summary judgment. The court allowed Fox's and Singleton's appeal on the basis that they were not necessary parties to the action.

Estoppel - Topic 1390

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Circumstances where doctrine not applicable - Lack of rights or agreement which may be enforced - [See Practice - Topic 5653.2 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 1946.2

Remuneration - Pension or retirement benefits - Portability or transfer - Manitoba Telecom Services (MTS) privatized - The plaintiffs alleged that MTS did not provide them with benefits that were equivalent in value to what the employees and/or retirees enjoyed under their old plan, as required by the Manitoba Telephone System Reorganization and Consequential Amendments Act - The plaintiffs sued MTS, the Provincial Auditor (Singleton) and an independent actuary (Fox) who had determined that MTS had provided equivalent benefits - Section 15(10) of the Act provided that "The persons described in subs. (2) are deemed to consent (a) to termination of their participation in the fund; (b) to the assignment and transfer of assets, liabilities and agreements from the fund to the new plan; (c) to the determination of all rights under the new plan without reference to the Civil Service Superannuation Act, the fund, or any trust or trust agreement relating to them; and (d) to termination of their participation in the group insurance plan established under the Public Servants Insurance Act and to the assignment and transfer of monies and investments, liabilities and agreement related to such group insurance plan." - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that s. 15(10) did not preclude the employees from challenging the independent actuary's decision - To read s. 15(10) in such a restrictive manner did not accord with the modern principles of statutory interpretation, especially since pension benefits were at stake - See paragraphs 85 to 99.

Practice - Topic 5653.2

Judgments and orders - Declaratory judgments - When available - Requirement of a binding declaration of right - Manitoba Telecom Services (MTS) privatized - The plaintiffs alleged that MTS did not provide them with benefits that were equivalent in value to what the employees and/or retirees enjoyed under their old plan, as required by the Manitoba Telephone System Reorganization and Consequential Amendments Act - The plaintiffs sued MTS, the Provincial Auditor (Singleton) and an independent actuary (Fox) who had determined that MTS had provided equivalent benefits - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that Singleton and Fox were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the action - The plaintiffs' request for a declaration against them could not be sustained because the requirement for a "binding declaration of right" was absent - Further, rules 5.03(1) and 5.03(3) respecting necessary parties did not alter this result - Neither Fox nor Singleton had a direct interest in the proceedings - Neither fairness nor procedural considerations mandated the inclusion of either as party defendants - Further, they were not estopped from seeking to withdraw from the proceedings by their prior consent to being added as defendants when there was no legal justification for the proceedings to be continued against them - Nor was their removal from the action an abuse of process - See paragraphs 35 to 78.

Statutes - Topic 2615

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Modern rule (incl. interpretation by context) - Social context - [See Master and Servant - Topic 1946.2 ].

Cases Noticed:

Klymchuk v. Cowan (1964), 45 D.L.R.(2d) 587 (Man. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 39].

London Passenger Transport Board v. Moscrop, [1942] A.C. 332 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 50].

Solosky v. Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821; 30 N.R. 380, refd to. [para. 52].

Pyx Granite Co. v. Ministry of Housing and Local Government, [1958] 1 Q.B. 554 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

Montana Indian Band et al. v. Canada (1991), 120 N.R. 200 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Parkinson v. Health Sciences Centre (Man.) (1982), 13 Man.R.(2d) 233; 131 D.L.R.(3d) 513 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

McIntire v. University of Manitoba et al. (1981), 7 Man.R.(2d) 181 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Workers' Compensation Board (Man.) and Gudmundson v. Hagebock and Beyer's Cement Inc. et al. (1985), 37 Man.R.(2d) 183 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Wright Estate v. Via Rail Canada Inc. et al., [2000] 4 W.W.R. 232; 256 A.R. 148 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 60].

MacLeod et al. v. White and Stephen (1955), 37 M.P.R. 341 (N.B.S.C.), refd to. [para. 63].

Fremont Canning Co. et al. v. Wall & Fine Foods of Canada Ltd., [1941] 3 D.L.R. 96 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

Architectural Institute of British Columbia v. Lee's Design & Engineering Ltd. et al. (1979), 96 D.L.R.(3d) 385 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 65].

Ross River Dena Council Band et al. v. Canada et al. (1999), 131 B.C.A.C. 219; 214 W.A.C. 219; 1999 BCCA 750 (Yuk. C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

Administration de pilotage des Laurentides v. Pilotes du Saint-Laurent Central Inc. (1993), 74 F.T.R. 185 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 65].

McMurray Homes Ltd. v. Fort McMurray (New Town), [1976] 5 W.W.R. 442 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

CTV Television Inc. v. R. et al. (2005), 201 Man.R.(2d) 38; 366 W.A.C. 38; 2005 MBCA 120, refd to. [para. 68].

Greyhound Canada Transportation Corp. et al. v. Motor Transport Board (Man.) (2006), 208 Man.R.(2d) 281; 383 W.A.C. 281; 2006 MBCA 140, refd to. [para. 68].

Save The Eaton's Building Coalition v. Winnipeg (City) et al. (2001), 160 Man.R.(2d) 236; 262 W.A.C. 236; 2001 MBCA 186, refd to. [para. 69].

British Columbia Ferry Corp. et al. v. T & N plc et al., [1996] 4 W.W.R. 161; 65 B.C.A.C. 118; 106 W.A.C. 118 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].

Amoco Canada Petroleum Co. et al. v. Propak Systems Ltd. et al. (2001), 281 A.R. 185; 248 W.A.C. 185; 2001 ABCA 110, refd to. [para. 72].

Moulton v. R., [2002] 2 C.T.C. 2395 (T.C.C.), refd to. [para. 76].

Granger v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission (1986), 69 N.R. 212; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 501 (F.C.A.), affd. [1989] 1 S.C.R. 141; 91 N.R. 63, refd to. [para. 76].

Elias v. Duerksen, [1930] 2 W.W.R. 481 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

Rock Resources Inc. v. British Columbia (2003), 183 B.C.A.C. 246; 301 W.A.C. 246; 2003 BCCA 324, leave to appeal dismissed (2004), 329 N.R. 399; 209 B.C.A.C. 160; 345 W.A.C. 160 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 83].

Pyx Granite Co. v. Ministry of Housing and Local Government, [1960] A.C. 260 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 83].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 87].

Gendis Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2006), 205 Man.R.(2d) 164; 375 W.A.C. 164; 2006 MBCA 58, refd to. [para. 90].

Sneddon et al. v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority et al. (2004), 197 B.C.A.C. 289; 323 W.A.C. 289; 2004 BCCA 292, refd to. [para. 93].

GenCorp Canada Inc. v. Superintendent of Pensions (Ont.) et al. (1998), 114 O.A.C. 170; 158 D.L.R.(4th) 497 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 94].

Abrahams v. Canada (Attorney General), [1983] 1 S.C.R. 2; 46 N.R. 185, refd to. [para. 96].

Berardinelli v. Ontario Housing Corp. et al., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 275; 23 N.R. 298, refd to. [para. 97].

Podkriznik v. Schwede (1990), 64 Man.R.(2d) 199 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 103].

Pearson v. Plester et al. (1995), 100 Man.R.(2d) 162; 91 W.A.C. 162 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 104].

Blanco et al. v. Canada Trust Co. et al. (2003), 173 Man.R.(2d) 247; 293 W.A.C. 247; 2003 MBCA 64, refd to. [para. 105].

Somers Estate v. Maxwell (1995), 107 Man.R.(2d) 220; 109 W.A.C. 220 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 105].

Hercules Management Ltd. et al. v. Ernst & Young et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 165; 211 N.R. 352; 115 Man.R.(2d) 241; 139 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 106].

Fidkalo v. Levin (1992), 76 Man.R.(2d) 267; 10 W.A.C. 267 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 106].

Cardinal and Oswald v. Kent Institution (Director), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643; 63 N.R. 353, refd to. [para. 111].

Chaves et al. v. Shum et al. (2004), 184 Man.R.(2d) 164; 318 W.A.C. 164; 2004 MBCA 56, refd to. [para. 112].

Johnson (G.D.) Ltd. v. Royal Bank of Canada (1998), 126 Man.R.(2d) 285; 167 W.A.C. 285 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 112].

Jane Doe et al. v. Manitoba (2005), 195 Man.R.(2d) 309; 351 W.A.C. 309; 2005 MBCA 109, refd to. [para. 118].

Statutes Noticed:

Manitoba Telephone System Reorganization and Consequential Amendments Act, S.M. 1996, c. 79, sect. 15(2)(a), sect. 15(3), sect. 15(10) [para. 5]; sect. 15(11) [para. 6].

Rules of Court (Man.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 5.03(1), rule 5.03(3) [para. 67].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Donald J.M., and Evans, John M., Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada, para. 1:7310 [para. 39].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 87].

Hansard (Man.) - see Manitoba, Hansard, Legislative Assembly, The Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources.

Howard, Michael Newman, Crane, Peter, Hochberg, Daniel A., Phipson on Evidence - see Phipson on Evidence.

Manitoba, Hansard, Legislative Assembly, The Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources (November 7, 1996), generally [para. 82].

Martin, Paul, The Declaratory Judgment (1931), 8 C.B.R. 540, p. 547 [para. 62].

Phipson on Evidence (14th Ed. 1990), para. 6-05 [para. 75].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), p. 404 [para. 96].

Woolf, Lord, and Woolf, Jeremy, The Declaratory Judgment - see Zamir, Itzhak, and Woolf, Jeremy, The Declaratory Judgment.

Zamir, Itzhak, and Woolf, Jeremy, The Declaratory Judgment (2nd Ed. 1993), generally [para. 47]; pp. 14 [para. 48]; 235 [para. 51].

Counsel:

E.W. Olson, Q.C., and S.I. Perlmutter, for the appellants, Manitoba Telecom Services Inc., MTS Communications Inc., MTS Mobility Inc. and MTS Advanced Inc.;

R.A. Dewar, Q.C., for the appellant, C. Fox;

T.E. Bock, for the appellant, J. Singleton;

B.J. Meronek, Q.C., and K.M. Saxberg, for the respondents.

These appeals were heard on March 5 and 6, 2007, by Scott, C.J.M., Monnin and Hamilton, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. Scott, C.J.M., delivered the following decision for the court on June 25, 2007.

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration) c. Tennant,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • July 16, 2019
    ...(C.A.); Telecommunication Employees Association of Manitoba Inc. v. Manitoba Telecom Services Inc., 2007 MBCA 85, 214 Man. R. (2d) 284; Canada (Ressources hu-maines et Développement social) c. Layden, 2009 CAF 14; Adamson c. Canada (Commission canadienne des droits de la personne), 201......
  • West Moberly First Nations v. British Columbia, 2020 BCCA 138
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • May 19, 2020
    ...where they are in dispute: Telecommunication Employees Association of Manitoba Inc. et al. v. Manitoba Telecom Services Inc. et al., 2007 MBCA 85 at para. 62. It is also consistent with the plain language of R. 20‑4(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, which allows the court to make “bindin......
  • THE LIMITS OF THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.
    • Canada
    • McGill Law Journal Vol. 67 No. 3, March 2022
    • March 1, 2022
    ...2018 SCC 30 at para 81 [Ewert]. (2) Telecommunication Employees Association of Manitoba Inc et al v Manitoba Telecom Services Inc et al, 2007 MBCA 85 at para 62 [Telecommunication], quoting Paul Martin, "The Declaratory Judgment" (1931) 9:8 Can Bar Rev 540 at 547. See also Canada (Minister ......
  • 1420041 Ontario Inc. v. 1 King West Inc.,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • January 26, 2012
    ...refd to. [para. 30]. Telecommunication Employees Association of Manitoba Inc. et al. v. Manitoba Telecom Services Inc. et al. (2007), 214 Man.R.(2d) 284; 395 W.A.C. 284; 2007 MBCA 85, refd to. [para. Campbell Estate v. Fang (1994), 155 A.R. 270; 73 W.A.C. 270 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30]. Ca......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration) c. Tennant,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • July 16, 2019
    ...(C.A.); Telecommunication Employees Association of Manitoba Inc. v. Manitoba Telecom Services Inc., 2007 MBCA 85, 214 Man. R. (2d) 284; Canada (Ressources hu-maines et Développement social) c. Layden, 2009 CAF 14; Adamson c. Canada (Commission canadienne des droits de la personne), 201......
  • West Moberly First Nations v. British Columbia, 2020 BCCA 138
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • May 19, 2020
    ...where they are in dispute: Telecommunication Employees Association of Manitoba Inc. et al. v. Manitoba Telecom Services Inc. et al., 2007 MBCA 85 at para. 62. It is also consistent with the plain language of R. 20‑4(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, which allows the court to make “bindin......
  • 1420041 Ontario Inc. v. 1 King West Inc.,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • January 26, 2012
    ...refd to. [para. 30]. Telecommunication Employees Association of Manitoba Inc. et al. v. Manitoba Telecom Services Inc. et al. (2007), 214 Man.R.(2d) 284; 395 W.A.C. 284; 2007 MBCA 85, refd to. [para. Campbell Estate v. Fang (1994), 155 A.R. 270; 73 W.A.C. 270 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30]. Ca......
  • Brett-Young Seeds Ltd. et al. v. K.B.A. Consultants Inc. et al.,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • October 2, 2007
    ...33, refd to. [para. 27]. Telecommunication Employees Association of Manitoba Inc. et al. v. Manitoba Telecom Services Inc. et al. (2007), 214 Man.R.(2d) 284; 395 A.P.R. 284; 2007 MBCA 85, refd to. [para. 27]. Homestead Properties (Canada) Ltd. v. Sekhri et al. (2007), 214 Man.R.(2d) 148; 39......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • THE LIMITS OF THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.
    • Canada
    • McGill Law Journal Vol. 67 No. 3, March 2022
    • March 1, 2022
    ...2018 SCC 30 at para 81 [Ewert]. (2) Telecommunication Employees Association of Manitoba Inc et al v Manitoba Telecom Services Inc et al, 2007 MBCA 85 at para 62 [Telecommunication], quoting Paul Martin, "The Declaratory Judgment" (1931) 9:8 Can Bar Rev 540 at 547. See also Canada (Minister ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT