Vaughan v. Canada

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Citation: (2005), 331 N.R. 64 (SCC),2005 SCC 11,250 DLR (4th) 385,331 NR 64,[2005] 1 SCR 146,41 CCEL (3d) 159,JE 2005-597,[2005] ACS no 12,[2005] SCJ No 12 (QL),137 ACWS (3d) 942
• Date: 07 January 2005

Vaughan v. Can. (2005), 331 N.R. 64 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2005] N.R. TBEd. MR.027

William Thomas Vaughan (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) and Attorney General of Alberta and Public Service Alliance of Canada (intervenors)

(29712; 2005 SCC 11; 2005 CSC 11)

Indexed As: Vaughan v. Canada

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.,

March 18, 2005.

Summary:

Vaughan, a Public Works' employee, was advised that he was surplus due to lack of work and offered conditional employment. He was denied Early Retirement Incentive (ERI) benefits because a reasonable job offer had been made. Vaughan grieved. He was of­fered another position. He grieved because the job offer did not address his ERI claim. The National Joint Council held that the lay-off was not justified. An adjudicator upheld the Council's decision, holding, inter alia, that he lacked jurisdiction to consider the ERI claim. Vaughan sued the Federal Gov­ern­ment in negligence for refusing to accept his ERI claim. The Federal Govern­ment moved to strike the action, asserting that the court lacked jurisdiction.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Can­ada, Trial Division, in a decision report­ed at 182 F.T.R. 199, allowed the motion to strike the action. Vaughan appealed.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported at 213 F.T.R. 144, dismissed the appeal. Vaughan ap­pealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 306 N.R. 366, dismissed the ap­peal. Vaughan appealed.

The Supreme Court of Appeal, McLachlin, C.J.C. and Bastarache, J., dissenting, dis­missed the appeal.

Labour Law - Topic 9076

Public service labour relations - Remedies - Civil action - When available - Vaughan was a Public Works' employee whose po­sition was declared surplus - He sought Early Retirement Incentive (ERI) benefits for employees who had been declared sur­plus - The Public Service Staff Re­lations Act (PSSRA) scheme provided that bene­fits it negotiated as part of a collective agreement were arbitrable but those, like ERI benefits, which were offered outside the framework of collective bargaining were grievable but not arbitrable - Vaughan declined to grieve the denial of ERI benefits under the PSSRA procedure and sued the Federal Government in negli­gence for refusing to accept his ERI claim - At issue was whether the court had juris­diction to hear the action given that PSSRA created a complete code for the de­termination and adjudication of disputes arising relative to employment in the Pub­lic Service of Canada (s. 91) - The Su­preme Court of Canada held that Parlia­ment's intent expressed in ss. 91, 92 and 96(3) of the PSSRA was clearly to deny ac­cess to third-party arbitration in the case of regulation-conferred benefits such as the ERI - The language of the PSSRA was not strong enough to oust the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts respecting matters grievable under s. 91, but not arbitrable under s. 92 - However, the courts should generally, as a matter of discretion, decline to get involved except on the limited basis of judicial review - The court deferred to the PSSRA grievance procedure in this case - It was not open to Vaughan to ig­nore the PSSRA scheme and litigate his claim to ERI benefits in the courts by "dressing it up" as a negligence action - See paragraphs 13 to 42.

Labour Law - Topic 9100

Public service labour relations - Grievances - General - [See Labour Law - Topic 9076 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9301

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - General - [See Labour Law - Topic 9076 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9655

Public service labour relations - Collective agreement - Civil action - Jurisdiction - [See Labour Law - Topic 9076 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9707

Public service labour relations - Collective agreement - Arbitration - Matters not ar­bitrable - [See Labour Law - Topic 9076 ].

Cases Noticed:

Regina Police Association Inc. and Shotton v. Board of Police Commissioners of Regina, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 360; 251 N.R. 16; 189 Sask.R. 23; 216 W.A.C. 23; 2000 SCC 14, refd to. [paras. 14, 61].

Pleau v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1999), 181 N.S.R.(2d) 356; 560 A.P.R. 356; 182 D.L.R.(4th) 373 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 19, 57].

Guenette et al. v. Canada (Attorney Gen­er­al) et al. (2002), 162 O.A.C. 371; 60 O.R.(3d) 601 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 19, 51].

Gendron v. Supply and Services Union of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Local 50557 et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1298; 109 N.R. 321; 66 Man.R.(2d) 81, refd to. [paras. 21, 43].

Yearwood v. Canada (Attorney General) (2002), 171 B.C.A.C. 124; 280 W.A.C. 124; 216 D.L.R.(4th) 462; 2002 BCCA 427, refd to. [paras. 24, 57].

Ocean Port Hotel Ltd. v. Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (B.C.), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 781; 274 N.R. 116; 155 B.C.A.C. 193; 254 W.A.C. 193; 2001 SCC 52, refd to. [paras. 26, 63].

Danilov v. Atomic Energy Control Board (1999), 125 O.A.C. 130 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 28, 57].

St. Anne Nackawic Pulp & Paper Co. v. Cana­dian Paper Workers Union, Local 219, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 704; 68 N.R. 112; 73 N.B.R.(2d) 236; 184 A.P.R. 236, refd to. [paras. 30, 43].

Johnson-Paquette v. Canada (2000), 253 N.R. 305 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 31, 57].

Gaignard et al. v. Canada (Attorney Gen­eral) et al. (2003), 178 O.A.C. 77; 232 D.L.R.(4th) 43 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Phillips v. Harrison (2000), 153 Man.R.(2d) 1; 238 W.A.C. 1; 196 D.L.R.(4th) 69; 2000 MBCA 150, refd to. [paras. 36, 57].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 43].

Bell v. Canada (Minister of Transport) (2002), 209 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 32; 626 A.P.R. 32; 210 D.L.R.(4th) 463; 2002 NFCA 5, refd to. [para. 57].

Olsen v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2003), 181 B.C.A.C. 219; 298 W.A.C. 219; 226 D.L.R.(4th) 483; 2003 BCCA 209, refd to. [para. 57].

Bouchard v. Canada (Ministre de la Dé­fense) et al. (1999), 255 N.R. 183; 187 D.L.R.(4th) 314 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Can­ada (Treasury Board) et al. (2002), 293 N.R. 325; 2002 FCA 239, refd to. [para. 57].

Derrickson et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Develop­ment) (1993), 63 F.T.R. 292 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 64].

MacInnis v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1994] 2 F.C. 464; 166 N.R. 57 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

British Columbia Telephone Co. v. Tele­com­munications Workers Union, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 564; 88 N.R. 260, refd to. [para. 65].

Jadwani v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2001), 141 O.A.C. 22; 52 O.R.(3d) 660 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Em­ployees v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 495; 198 N.R. 161; 78 B.C.A.C. 162; 128 W.A.C. 162, refd to. [para. 72].

Statutes Noticed:

Public Service Staff Re­lations Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-35, sect. 91, sect. 92, sect. 96(3) [para. 32].

Counsel:

Dougald E. Brown and Chris Rootham, for the appellant;

Brian J. Saunders and Kirk Lambrecht, Q.C., for the respondent;

Hugh J.D. McPhail, Q.C., for the in­ter­vener the Attorney General of Alberta;

Andrew Raven, for the intervener the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

Solicitors of Record:

Nelligan O'Brien Payne, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent;

McLennan Ross, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervener the Attorney General of Alberta;

Raven, Allen, Cameron Ballantyne & Yaz­beck, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

This appeal was heard on January 7, 2005, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Can­ada. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages on March 18, 2005, and the fol­lowing opinions were filed:

Binnie, J. (Major, Lebel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., concur­ring) - see paragraphs 1 to 42;

Bastarache, J., dissenting (McLachlin, C.J.C., concurring) - see paragraphs 43 to 74.