Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees et al., (1990) 39 O.A.C. 82 (CA)

• Judge: Blair, Goodman and Tarnopolsky, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: April 10, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1990), 39 O.A.C. 82 (CA);1990 CanLII 6974 (NS CA);1990 CanLII 6974 (ON CA);74 OR (2d) 239;69 DLR (4th) 268;[1990] CarswellOnt 1088;[1990] OJ No 537 (QL);20 ACWS (3d) 512;39 OAC 82

Toronto v. CUPE (1990), 39 O.A.C. 82 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Metropolitan Toronto Civic Employees' Union, Local 43 (respondent/appellant in appeal) v. The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (applicant/respondent in Appeal)

(No. 224/88)

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

Ontario Court of Appeal

Blair, Goodman and Tarnopolsky, JJ.A.

April 10, 1990.

Summary:

The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto issued a memorandum regarding the mandatory use of warning lights and sirens on the municipality's ambulances. The employees affected grieved, although no employee had been disciplined for failing to use the warning lights and sirens. The municipality objected to the jurisdiction of the arbitration board. The board held that it had jurisdiction to deal with the grievance, notwithstanding that no one had been disciplined. The municipality applied for judicial review.

The Ontario Divisional Court, in a decision reported 23 O.A.C. 353, allowed the application and quashed the board's decision, holding that the board lacked jurisdiction to decide the wisdom of the municipality's policy where there was no question of discipline. The employees appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Divisional Court and restored the decision of the arbitration board.

Labour Law - Topic 6702

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Interpretation - Management rights - Duty to act reasonably - The employees of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto grieved respecting a policy that employees must use warning lights and sirens on ambulances for all emergency calls - An arbitration board ruled that the collective agreement imposed a duty on management to act "reasonably" even when exercising its uncontrolled discretion to manage the operation of equipment, plant and machinery - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that in imposing this duty the board gave the collective agreement an interpretation it could reasonably bear - See paragraphs 44 to 58.

Labour Law - Topic 7037

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - Arbitration - Matters arbitrable - [See Labour Law - Topic 7138 ].

Labour Law - Topic 7138

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Enforcement - Arbitration - Grievances - "Obey now grieve later rule" - Employees of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto grieved respecting a policy that employees must use warning lights and sirens on ambulances for all emergency calls - No one was disciplined for breaching the policy - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that an arbitration board had jurisdiction to hear the grievance under the "obey now grieve later rule" - See paragraphs 1 to 43.

Cases Noticed:

British Columbia Telephone v. Telecommunications Workers Union, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 564; 88 N.R. 260, affing. (1985), 65 B.C.L.R. 145, refd to. [para. 17].

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Forer and Ontario Public Service Labour Relations Tribunal (1985), 12 O.A.C. 1; 52 O.R.(2d) 705 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Ottawa (City) v. Ottawa Professional Firefighters Association, Local 162, International Association of Firefighters and Kates (1987), 19 O.A.C. 197; 58 O.R.(2d) 686 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Cadillac Fairview Corp. and T.E.C. Leaseholds Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union AFL-CI0-CLC et al. (1989), 36 O.A.C. 179; 71 O.R.(2d) 206 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Paccar of Canada Ltd. v. Canadian Association of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers, Local 14 (1989), 102 N.R. 1; 62 D.L.R.(4th) 437, refd to. [para. 21].

Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social Services) v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union (1986), 17 O.A.C. 366; 57 O.R.(2d) 404 (Div. Ct.), dist. [para. 24].

Re B.C. Rwy. Co. and C.U.T.E. (1982), 8 L.A.C.(3d) 250, refd to. [para. 27].

Wardair v. Canadian Air Line Flight Attendants Association (1988), 25 O.A.C. 52; 63 O.R.(2d) 472 (Div. Ct.), consd. [paras. 28-33, 56].

Re Burns Foods Ltd. (1977), 16 L.A.C.(2d) 377, refd to. [para. 34].

Re Steel Co. of Canada Ltd. (1973), 4 L.A.C.(2d) 315, refd to. [para. 34].

Kelso v. Canada, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 199; 35 N.R. 19, dist. [paras. 40, 41].

Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada (No. 2), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138; 1 N.R. 225; 43 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 43].

McNeil v. Nova Scotia Board of Censors, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 265; 5 N.R. 43; 12 N.S.R.(2d) 85; 6 A.P.R. 85, refd to. [para. 43].

Borowski v. Minister of Justice of Canada and Minister of Finance for Canada, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 575; 39 N.R. 331; 12 Sask.R. 420, refd to. [para. 43].

Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607; 71 N.R. 338, refd to. [para. 43].

Re Council of Printing Industries and T.P.P.A.U. (1983), 42 O.R.(2d) 404 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 47, 51, 52].

Re Metropolitan Toronto Board of Commissioners of Police and Metropolitan Toronto Police Association (1981), 33 O.R.(2d) 476 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 47, 50, 52].

Re LSWU and KVP Co. Ltd. (1965), 16 L.A.C. 73, refd to. [para. 52].

Re Dominion Stores Ltd. (1976), 11 L.A.C.(2d) 401, refd to. [para. 52].

Re Religious Hospitaliers of St. Joseph and S.E.U. (1983), 11 L.A.C.(2d) 151, refd to. [para. 53].

Greenberg v. Montreal Trust Company, Meffert and Melfi (1985), 9 O.A.C. 69; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 548 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Statutes Noticed:

Labour Relations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 228, sect. 44(1) [paras. 17, 19].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Beatty, David, The Role of the Arbitrator: A Liberal Version (1984), 34 U.T.L.J. 136 [para. 56].

Brown and Beatty, Canadian Labour Arbitration (2nd Ed. 1984), pp. 434, 435 [para. 30]; 439 [para. 31]; 179 [para. 52].

Counsel:

Howard Goldblatt, for the appellant;

George S. Monteith, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 8 and 9, 1990, before Blair, Goodman and Tarnopolsky, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Tarnopolsky, J.A., and released on April 10, 1990: