Telecommunications Workers Union Local 202 v. Macmillan et al., (2008) 458 A.R. 367 (QB)

• Judge: Erb, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 05, 2008
• Citations: (2008), 458 A.R. 367 (QB);2008 ABQB 657

TWU v. Macmillan (2008), 458 A.R. 367 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] A.R. TBEd. OC.130

Telecommunications Workers Union Local 202 (appellant) v. Wayne Macmillan, Robert (Bob) Pinchak and Cody Gejdos (respondents)

(080104129; 2008 ABQB 657)

Indexed As: Telecommunications Workers Union Local 202 v. Macmillan et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Erb, J.

October 23, 2008.

Summary:

The plaintiff union instituted disciplinary proceedings against three members (the defendants). They were found guilty and fines were imposed. The union constitution provided that if the fines were not paid in the stipulated time (they were not), the members were suspended. The union sought a monetary judgment against each of the defendants in the amount of the fine. The defendants applied to dismiss the claim.

The Alberta Provincial Court, in a decision reported at (2008), 438 A.R. 280, allowed the application. The union appealed.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal.

Editor's note: a motion for leave to appeal this decision was dismissed. See (2009), 398 N.R.  386 (S.C.C.).

Courts - Topic 583

Judges - Duties - Re reasons for decisions (incl. notes) - [See Statutes - Topic 2601 ].

Courts - Topic 8405

Provincial courts - Alberta - Provincial Court - Jurisdiction - The plaintiff union instituted disciplinary proceedings against three members (the defendants) - They were found guilty and fines were imposed - The union sought a monetary judgment against each of the defendants in the amount of the fine - The defendants applied to dismiss the claim - The trial court allowed the application - The fines were not debts within the meaning of s. 9.6(1) of the Provincial Court Act, but were penalties imposed on the defendants as a consequence of their misconduct - The court was being asked to confirm the fine and, thereby, confirm the discipline imposed by the union through its internal procedure - The court had no jurisdiction to discipline union members for an apparent breach of the union constitution - The plaintiff's claim was not a debt nor actionable as a debt - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the union's appeal - The fines imposed by the union were determined solely by the union after the alleged breach of the union constitution - They were only "readily ascertainable" or "sums certain" after they had been imposed by the union - They were penalties, not debts, and, absent specific statutory authority, were not enforceable as such by the court - The trial judge's decision was correct - See paragraphs 12 to 32.

Courts - Topic 8405

Provincial courts - Alberta - Provincial Court - Jurisdiction - The plaintiff union instituted disciplinary proceedings against three members (the defendants) - They were found guilty and fines were imposed - The union sought a monetary judgment against each of the defendants in the amount of the fine - The defendants applied to dismiss the claim - The trial court allowed the application - The fines represented a penalty for disciplinary purposes - They were not damages within the meaning of s. 9.6(1) of the Provincial Court Act - No loss was asserted - This was simply an action seeking to give the authority of law to the internal discipline process imposed by the union - The pleadings demonstrated no independent actionable wrong over and above the principal breach of contract alleged - Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim could not stand - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the union's appeal - The trial judge correctly characterized the fines as penalties rather than a genuine pre-estimate of damages - The fines could not be enforced as general damages - The court also rejected the union's argument that the fines could be characterized as aggravated or punitive damages - Because they were not intended to be compensatory, they were not aggravated damages - The defendants' conduct in breaching the union constitution (crossing a picket line) was not so reprehensible and malicious that it met the standard for the imposition of punitive damages - See paragraphs 33 to 40.

Creditors and Debtors - Topic 8

General - Debt defined - [See first Courts - Topic 8405 ].

Damages - Topic 2

General principles - Definitions - What constitutes "damages" - [See second Courts - Topic 8405 ].

Damages - Topic 904

Aggravation - General - Aggravated damages defined - [See second Courts - Topic 8405 ].

Damages - Topic 1297

Exemplary or punitive damages - Conditions precedent (or when awarded) - [See second Courts - Topic 8405 ].

Labour Law - Topic 2247

Unions - Constitution and bylaws - General - Effect on civil action - [See both Courts - Topic 8405 ].

Labour Law - Topic 2362

Unions - Discipline of members - Jurisdiction - [See first Courts - Topic 8405 ].

Labour Law - Topic 2375

Unions - Discipline of members - Fines and penalties - Enforcement - [See both Courts - Topic 8405 ].

Statutes - Topic 2601

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Modern rule (incl. interpretation by context) - General principles - The plaintiff union appealed the dismissal of its action to enforce fines imposed on three of its members - The union asserted, inter alia, that the trial judge had (i) followed the reasoning of two earlier decisions that had failed to interpret the relevant legislation in the manner mandated in Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re (S.C.C. 1998) and Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al. (S.C.C. 2002) and (ii) failed to reference the principles of interpretation expressed in Rizzo and Bell Express Vu in his written reasons - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the union's approach on this point - The judge did not have to refer specifically to Rizzo, Bell Express Vu or the Interpretation Act every time a statute required interpretation - What was important was that the interpretation applied by the judge was consistent with those principles - The judge made no error in adopting the reasoning in decisions that did not refer specifically to Rizzo and Bell Express Vu as long as the reasons were consistent with the proper approach to statutory interpretation - See paragraphs 19 to 22.

Cases Noticed:

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. Perks, Grandy and Hearn (1986), 62 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 69; 190 A.P.R. 69 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to.[para. 14].

Newfoundland Association of Public Employees v. Drake et al. (2002), 209 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 330; 626 A.P.R. 330 (N.L.T.D.), 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, consd. [para. 19].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 19].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 19].

Clayborn Investments Ltd. v. Wiegert (1977), 5 A.R. 50 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Secretary of State of Canada v. Neitzke; Secretary of State of Canada v. Weihmayer (1921), 62 S.C.R. 262, refd to. [para. 28].

Paine (J.R.) and Associates Ltd. et al. v. Cairns et al. (1987), 82 A.R. 323; 55 Alta. L.R.(2d) 293 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 29].

Birch et al. v. Union of Taxation Employees Local 70030, [2007] O.T.C. Uned. L19 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 33].

Vorvis v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1085; 94 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 36].

Counsel:

William J. Johnson, Q.C., for the appellant;

David J. Corry, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on September 5, 2008, by Erb, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on October 23, 2008.