Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., (2001) 149 O.A.C. 213 (CA)

• Judge: Labrosse, Doherty and Feldman, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: Friday August 10, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2001), 149 O.A.C. 213 (CA)

Toronto v. CUPE (2001), 149 O.A.C. 213 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] O.A.C. TBEd. AU.016

City of Toronto (applicant/respondent in appeal) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 (respondent/appellant in appeal) and Douglas C. Stanley (respondent) and Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General (intervener)

(C35112)

Indexed As: Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Labrosse, Doherty and Feldman, JJ.A.

August 10, 2001.

Summary:

Three public service employees were found guilty in criminal courts of sexual assault charges respecting acts committed in the workplace. Their respective employer dismissed them. The employees grieved. Arbitrators ordered two employees reinstated. With respect to the third employee, the arbitrator made a preliminary order that his conviction was only prima facie, but not conclusive evidence that the grievor committed the crimes for which he had been convicted. The employers applied for judicial review.

The Ontario Divisional Court, in a decision reported 134 O.A.C. 48, allowed the application. The union appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Editor's note: See also 99 O.A.C. 234.

Arbitration - Topic 7803

Judicial review - General principles - Nature of review proceeding (incl. standard of review) - [See Labour Law - Topic 9353 ].

Arbitration - Topic 8403

Judicial review - Grounds - Misconduct - Unreasonable or patently unreasonable interpretation - [See Labour Law - Topic 9354 ].

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings (incl. validity of statutes) - A public service employee was found guilty in the criminal courts of sexual assault charges respecting acts committed in the workplace - He was dismissed - The employee grieved - The arbitrator allowed relitigation of the issue of whether the employee did the acts alleged in the criminal charge - At issue was whether issue estoppel barred relitigation - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that issue estoppel did not foreclose the union's relitigation of the finding made in the criminal proceeding where the employer played no role in the criminal proceedings and had no relationship to the Crown - See paragraph 47.

Estoppel - Topic 396

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - In labour relations proceedings - [See Estoppel - Topic 386 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9114

Public service labour relations - Grievances - Bars - Res judicata - [See Estoppel - Topic 386 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9120

Public service labour relations - Grievances - Evidence and proof - A public service employee was found guilty in the criminal courts of sexual assault charges respecting acts committed in the workplace - He was dismissed - The employee grieved - The arbitrator allowed relitigation of the issue of whether the employee did the acts alleged in the criminal charge - The arbitrator decided that the employee had not committed those acts and found that there were no grounds for his dismissal - The arbitrator ordered the employee reinstated - The employer successfully sought judicial review - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that finality concerns precluded relitigation - The court also held that in the context of a grievance arbitration, the principles established that where a prior conviction was proved and the facts underlying the conviction were the same as the facts in issue on the arbitration, the party seeking to relitigate those facts had to demonstrate compelling circumstances which warranted overriding the strong public interests served by treating a criminal conviction as a final determination of those facts - See paragraphs 106 to 112.

Labour Law - Topic 9154

Public service labour relations - Discipline and dismissal of civil or public servants - Dismissal - What constitutes cause for - Criminal conduct - [See Labour Law - Topic 9354 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9353

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - Decisions of adjudicators, arbitrators or grievance appeal boards - Scope of review (incl. standard) - A public service employee was found guilty in the criminal courts of sexual assault charges respecting acts committed in the workplace - He was dismissed - The employee grieved - The arbitrator allowed relitigation of the issue of whether the employee did the acts alleged in the criminal charge - The arbitrator decided that the employee had not committed those acts and found that there were no grounds for his dismissal - The arbitrator ordered the employee reinstated - The employer successfully sought judicial review - The Ontario Court of Appeal, having considered the factors analyzed in Pushpanathan (S.C.C.), was satisfied that a correctness standard of review was applicable to the arbitrator's decision in so far as it involved a determination of the legal principles to be applied in deciding whether the employee could relitigate the issue decided against him in the criminal proceeding - See paragraphs 16 to 38.

Labour Law - Topic 9354

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - Decisions of adjudicators, arbitrators or grievance appeal boards - Patently unreasonable decisions - A public service employee was found guilty in the criminal courts of sexual assault charges respecting acts committed in the workplace - He was dismissed - The employee grieved - The arbitrator allowed relitigation of the issue of whether the employee did the acts alleged in the criminal charge - The arbitrator decided that the employee had not committed those acts and found that there were no grounds for his dismissal - The arbitrator ordered the employee reinstated - The employer successfully sought judicial review - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the arbitrator erred in law by limiting the prohibition to relitigate issues decided in criminal proceedings to cases where the convicted person initiated the second proceeding to challenge the finding made in the criminal proceeding - This "erroneous and unduly restrictive" reading of the relevant authorities from the court led the arbitrator to fail to address the crucial policy considerations applicable here: whether finality concerns precluded relitigation or whether the justice of the individual case demanded relitigation - Here, finality concerns were paramount - Hence, the arbitrator erred in law in permitting relitigation of the employee's culpability - The arbitrator should have held that the employee's conviction established that he had sexually assaulted the complainant for the purposes of the arbitration - Based on that finding, any conclusion other than that the employer had established just cause for the employee's dismissal was patently unreasonable - See paragraphs 39 to 114.

Labour Law - Topic 9356

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - Decisions of adjudicators, arbitrators or grievance appeal boards - Error of law - [See Labour Law - Topic 9354 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 7568

Dismissal of employees - Grounds - Criminal conduct - [See Labour Law - Topic 9354 ].

Practice - Topic 5461

Judgments and orders - Finality of judgments and orders - General (incl. collateral attack) - The Ontario Court of Appeal did not agree that the rule against collateral attack on orders of superior courts provided a free-standing basis upon which to preclude relitigation - Not all collateral challenges were offensive - See paragraph 48.

Practice - Topic 5468

Judgments and orders - Finality of judgments and orders - Whether finality precludes relitigation - [See Labour Law - Topic 9354 ]

Cases Noticed:

Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. et al. (1998), 116 O.A.C. 225; 42 O.R.(3d) 235 (C.A.), revd. (2001), 272 N.R. 1; 149 O.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1, footnote 1].

Wernikowski v. Kirkland, Murphy & Ain (2000), 128 O.A.C. 33; 181 D.L.R.(4th) 625 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2000), 264 N.R. 196; 145 O.A.C. 398 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1, footnote 1].

Rasanen v. Rosemount Instruments Ltd. (1994), 68 O.A.C. 284; 17 O.R.(3d) 267 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1994), 178 N.R. 80; 77 O.A.C. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1, footnote 1].

Minott v. O'Shanter Development Co. (1999), 117 O.A.C. 1; 42 O.R.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1, footnote 1].

Schweneke v. Ontario (Minister of Education) (2000), 130 O.A.C. 93; 47 O.R.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1, footnote 1].

Heynen v. Frito-Lay Canada Ltd. et al. (1999), 124 O.A.C. 341; 179 D.L.R.(4th) 317 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1, footnote 1].

K.F. et al. v. White (2001), 142 O.A.C. 116; 53 O.R.(3d) 391 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1, footnote 1].

Del Core v. Ontario College of Pharmacists (1985), 10 O.A.C. 57; 51 O.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1986] 1 S.C.R. viii; 70 N.R. 82; 17 O.A.C. 79, consd. [paras. 12, 17].

Taylor Estate v. Baribeau and Jacob (1985), 12 O.A.C. 344; 51 O.R.(2d) 541 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 5].

Roth v. Roth (1991), 4 O.R.(3d) 740 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 5].

Q. and Q. v. Minto Management Ltd. et al. (1984), 46 O.R.(2d) 756 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 5].

Canada Post Corp. and Canadian Union of Public Employees (Cashen), Re (1993), 29 C.L.A.S. 516, refd to. [para. 17, footnote 5].

Canada Post Corp. and Canadian Union of Public Employees (Leavere), Re (1990), 73 L.A.C.(4th) 129, refd to. [para. 17, footnote 5].

Board of Education of Toronto v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation District 15 et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 487; 208 N.R. 245; 98 O.A.C. 241; 144 D.L.R.(4th) 385, consd. [para. 19].

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 579 v. Bradco Construction Ltd., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 316; 153 N.R. 81; 106 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 140; 334 A.P.R. 140; 102 D.L.R.(4th) 402, refd to. [para. 22].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 157; 177 N.R. 1; 121 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 27 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1; 95 C.L.L.C. 210-009, consd. [para. 23].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union (2000), 52 O.R.(3d) 77 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Pezim v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557; 168 N.R. 321; 46 B.C.A.C. 1; 75 W.A.C. 1; [1994] 7 W.W.R. 1; 92 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 14 B.C.R.(2d) 217; 22 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1; 114 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 25].

Superintendent of Brokers v. Pezim - see Pezim v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al.

Pasiechnyk et al. v. Procrane Inc. et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 890; 216 N.R. 1; 158 Sask.R. 81; 153 W.A.C. 81; 149 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 25].

Asbestos Corp., Société nationale de l'Amiante and Quebec (Province), Re (2001), 269 N.R. 311; 146 O.A.C. 201 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20; 144 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 26].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201; 160 D.L.R.(4th) 193, consd. [para. 26].

Dayco (Canada) Ltd. v. National Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 230; 152 N.R. 1; 63 O.A.C. 1; 102 D.L.R.(4th) 609; 93 C.L.L.C. 14,032, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Proudlock, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 525; 24 N.R. 199; 43 C.C.C.(2d) 321, refd to. [para. 44].

Angle v. Minister of National Revenue, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248; 2 N.R. 397; 47 D.L.R.(3d) 544, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd. et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 706; 225 N.R. 41; 108 O.A.C. 161; 123 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 48].

Braithwaite v. Nova Scotia Public Service Long Term Disability Plan Trust Fund (1999), 176 N.S.R.(2d) 173; 538 A.P.R. 173 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

Demeter v. British Pacific Life Insurance Co., Occidental Life Insurance Co. of California and Dominion Life Assurance Co. (1983), 43 O.R.(2d) 33 (H.C.), affd. (1984), 7 O.A.C. 143; 48 O.R.(2d) 266 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

Hunter v. West Midlands Police (Chief Constable), [1982] A.C. 529 (H.L.), consd. [para. 65].

Reichel v. Magrath (1889), 14 App. Cas. 665, refd to. [para. 67].

Nigro v. Agnew-Surpass Shoe Stores Ltd. (1977), 18 O.R.(2d) 215 (H.C.), affd. (1977), 18 O.R.(2d) 714 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

Bjarnarson (H.R.) v. Manitoba (1987), 48 Man.R.(2d) 144; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 32 (Q.B.), affd. (1987), 50 Man.R.(2d) 178; 21 C.P.C.(2d) 302 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

Simpson v. Geswein (1995), 103 Man.R.(2d) 69; 25 C.C.L.T.(2d) 49 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 70].

Bomac Construction Ltd. et al. v. Stevenson et al., [1986] 5 W.W.R. 21; 48 Sask.R. 62 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

Roenisch v. Roenisch (1991), 123 A.R. 303; 85 D.L.R.(3d) 540 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 70].

Saskatoon Credit Union Ltd. v. Central Park Enterprises Ltd. (1988), 47 D.L.R.(4th) 431 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 70].

Canadian Tire Corp. v. Summers (1995), 23 O.R.(3d) 106 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 70].

Germscheid v. Valois et al. (1989), 34 C.P.C.(2d) 267 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 70].

Foy v. Foy (1978), 20 O.R.(2d) 747 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

Tsaoussis v. Baetz (1998), 112 O.A.C. 78; 41 O.R. 257 (C.A.). leave to appeal refused (1999), 236 N.R. 189; 112 O.A.C. 199 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. E.H. (1997), 98 O.A.C. 363; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 89 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1997), 224 N.R. 238; 107 O.A.C. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 78].

Manitoba Language Rights Reference, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man.R.(2d) 83; 19 D.L.R.(4th) 1; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Thomas, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 713; 108 N.R. 147; 75 C.R.(3d) 352, refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Sarson (J.A.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 223; 197 N.R. 125; 91 O.A.C. 124, refd to. [para. 81].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Bear Island Foundation et al. (1999), 126 O.A.C. 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 95].

Statutes Noticed:

Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E-23, sect. 22.1 [para. 41].

Labour Relations Act 1995, S.O. 1995, c. 1, Schedule A., sect. 48(1) [para. 28]; sect. 116 [para. 29].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Jones, David Phillip, and de Villars, Anne S., Principles of Administrative Law (3rd Ed. 1999), pp. 449-450 [para. 25].

Lange, Donald J., The Doctrine of Res Judicata in Canada (2000), pp. 31-34 [para. 95]; 369-374 [para. 48].

Perell, P., Res Judicata and Abuse of Process (2001), 24 Adv. Q. 189, pp. 196-97 [para. 70].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), pp. 104-106 [para. 44].

Watson, Garry D., Duplicative Litigation: Issue Estoppel, Abuse of Process and the Death of Mutuality (1990) 69 Can. Bar Rev. 623, pp. 648-651 [para. 71, 101, note 13].

Counsel:

Douglas J. Wray and Craig Flood, for the appellant;

Kari M. Abrams and Jason Hanson, for the respondent;

Leonard Marvy, Lucy McSweeney and Karin Rasmussen, for the intervener.

This appeal was heard on April 24, 2001, by Labrosse, Doherty and Feldman, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was released on August 10, 2001, by Doherty, J.A.