Warne et al. v. Regina Exhibition Association Ltd. et al., (1996) 170 Sask.R. 3 (QB)

• Judge: Klebuc, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: December 10, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1996), 170 Sask.R. 3 (QB)

Warne v. Regina Exhibition Assoc. Ltd. (1996), 170 Sask.R. 3 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] Sask.R. TBEd. AU.002

Elaine Warne, Erwin Schmidt, John Dunitz, Joanne Walker, Joan Wellwood, Matt Schabel and George Totten (applicants) v. Regina Exhibition Association Ltd. and Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (respondents)

(1996 Q.B.G. No. 1388)

Indexed As: Warne et al. v. Regina Exhibition Association Ltd. et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Klebuc, J.

December 10, 1996.

Summary:

The applicant employees believed that their dismissal resulted because of their union activities. The applicants applied to the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board for an order holding the employer guilty of an un­fair labour practice under s. 11(1)(e) of the Trade Union Act. The Board concluded that anti-union sentiment did not taint the em­ployer's motivation for terminating the ap­plicants and that their dismissal should be viewed as part of an organizational restruc­turing consistent with the Act. The appli­cants applied for judicial review of the Board's decision.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 549

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Reasons for decisions - Suffi­ciency of - [See Labour Law - Topic 830 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2088

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (considerations incl. bias) - Bias - Apprehension of - [See Labour Law - Topic 646 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2609

Natural justice - Evidence and proof - Reliance on evidence not adduced by parties - [See second Labour Law - Topic 655 ].

Labour Law - Topic 406

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Whether board bound by its prior deci­sions - The applicant employees applied to the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board for an order holding the employer guilty of an unfair labour practice under s. 11(1)(e) of the Trade Union Act - The Board found that the employer was not guilty of an unfair labour practice - The applicants applied for judicial review, arguing that the Board failed to apply the tests for s. 11(1)(e) in a manner consistent with its prior rulings - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the applicants' submission must be viewed in light of a Court of Appeal decision which stated that the Board was not bound by its previous decisions and could decide each question in light of its particular circumstances - The Board's application of s. 11(1)(e) was not so inconsistent with the Act or its previous decisions so as to create a juris­dictional error - See paragraphs 19 to 24.

Labour Law - Topic 604

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Judicial review - Jurisdiction - Provin­cial boards - Whether decision patently unrea­sonable - The applicant employees applied for judicial review of a decision of the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board on the ground, inter alia, that the decision was not made in accordance with the evidence - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - To the extent that the applicants sought to impugn the Board's decision on an evidentiary footing, they bore the onus of establishing a total absence of evidence on a critical question - The fact that the applicants or the court might disagree with the Board's interpretation of the evidence did not render its decision patently unreasonable and subject to judicial review - A total absence of relevant evidence had not been established by the applicants - See para­graph 26.

Labour Law - Topic 646

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Natural justice - Denial of - Bias - What constitutes - The applicant employees applied for judicial review of a decision of the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board - They argued, inter alia, that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed because the chairperson participated on a panel in a previous proceeding involving three of the applicants - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - See paragraphs 32 to 39.

Labour Law - Topic 655

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Natural justice - Denial of - Evidence - General - The applicant employees believed that their dismissal resulted because of their union activities - The applicants applied to the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board for an order hold­ing the employer guilty of an unfair labour practice under s. 11(1)(e) of the Trade Union Act - The Board found that the employer was not guilty of an unfair labour practice - The applicants applied for judicial review arguing, inter alia, that the Board's failure to consider the individ­ual evidence of each applicant constituted a breach of procedural fairness and natural justice - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the Board addressed the claims of each applicant sufficiently consistent with s. 11(1)(e) so as not to cause jurisdictional error - Absent evidence of a total failure by the Board to differentiate between the firing of each applicant, the court could not inter­fere - See paragraph 28.

Labour Law - Topic 655

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Natural justice - Denial of - Evidence - General - The applicant employees applied for judicial review of a decision of the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board - The applicants had testified in an earlier certification hearing before the Board and they submitted that the Board's reference to that earlier proceeding in its decision constituted a denial of natural justice because the Board considered evidence not properly before it - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argu­ment - The Board could have arrived at its conclusions on the evidence and the refer­ence to the earlier proceeding was no more than an acknowledgement of a prior deci­sion and was not used as evidence to form a conclusion with respect to the applicants' claim - See paragraphs 29 to 31.

Labour Law - Topic 830

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Procedure - Decision - General - The applicant employees applied for judicial review of a decision of the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board - They argued, inter alia, that the Board's decision was patently unreasonable because it failed to address three arguments raised by the applicants - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - Provided that there was a reasoned basis for the Board's decision, the Board did not have to make explicit written findings on each constituent element leading to its conclusion - Further, the alleged over­sights did not lead to a jurisdictional error where there were other facts before the Board on which it could have arrived at its decision - See paragraph 25.

Labour Law - Topic 3550

Unions - Unfair labour practices - By employer - Dismissal of employee for union activity - [See Labour Law - Topic 406 and first Labour Law - Topic 655 ].

Cases Noticed:

Board of Education of Regina School Divi­sion No. 4 et al. v. Teachers of Saskatchewan et al. (1996), 148 Sask.R. 81; 134 W.A.C. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Pasiechnyk v. Workers' Compensation Board (Sask.) - see Pasiechnyk et al. v. Procrane Inc. et al.

Pasiechnyk et al. v. Procrane Inc. et al., [1995] 7 W.W.R. 1; 131 Sask.R. 275; 95 W.A.C. 275 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Ser­vice Alliance of Canada, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 941; 150 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 7].

Saskatchewan Medical Association v. Medical Compensation Review Board (Sask.) and Saskatchewan (1988), 71 Sask.R. 178 (C.A.), supplementary rea­sons (1989), 73 Sask.R. 319 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Barclay v. Moose Jaw Sash & Door (1963) Ltd., International Woodworkers of America and Labour Relations Board (Sask.) (1982), 15 Sask.R. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Lester (W.W.) (1978) Ltd. v. United Asso­ci­ation of Journeymen and Appren­tices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 740 - see Planet Development Corp. and Lester (W.W.) (1978) Ltd. v. United Associ­ation of Journeymen and Appren­tices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 740.

Planet Development Corp. and Lester (W.W.) (1978) Ltd. v. United Associ­ation of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 740, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 644; 123 N.R. 241; 88 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 15; 274 A.P.R. 15; 91 C.L.L.C. 14,002; 76 D.L.R.(4th) 389; 48 Admin. L.R. 1, refd to. [para. 13].

National Corn Growers' Association et al. v. Canadian Import Tribunal, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1324; 114 N.R. 81; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 449, refd to. [para. 13].

Service Employees' International Union, Local 336 v. Eastend Wolf Willow Health Centre, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2297 and Labour Relations Board (Sask.) (1993), 109 Sask.R. 1; 42 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), reving. (1992), 104 Sask.R. 264 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

Liick v. Labour Relations Board (Sask.) et al. (1995), 139 Sask.R. 177 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

Saskatoon Board of Police Commissioners v. Saskatoon City Police Association et al., [1996] 1 W.W.R. 609; 138 Sask.R. 46 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 15].

Keeprite Workers' Independent Union v. Keeprite Products Ltd. (1980), 114 D.L.R.(3d) 162 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Scorgie and Hamel v. Morin (1993), 111 Sask.R. 189 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

Belleville (City) Commissioners of Police v. Belleville Police Association - see Belleville (City) v. Aggarwal.

Belleville (City) v. Aggarwal (1991), 52 O.A.C. 237 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 17].

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 59 v. Saskatoon (City) et al. (1988), 68 Sask.R. 187 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

Maurice v. Priel, McKeague and Walker, [1988] 1 W.W.R. 491; 60 Sask.R. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Board of Education of Elbow School Dis­trict et al. v. Board of Education of Outlook School Division No. 32 et al. (1993), 110 Sask.R. 183 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

Doyle and Mitchell v. Yellowknife District Hospi­tal Society, 77 C.L.L.C. 458, refd to. [para. 21].

Burt, Davis et al. v. Saskatoon Newspaper Guild, Local 234 - see Burt v. Armadale Publishers Ltd.

Burt v. Armadale Publishers Ltd., [1976] 1 W.W.R. 350 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Service Employees' International Union, Local 333 v. Nipawin District Staff Nurses' Associ­ation et al., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 382; 41 D.L.R.(3d) 6, refd to. [para. 25].

Sollars v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1832 et al., [1984] 4 W.W.R. 44; 32 Sask.R. 188 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Bala v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1988), 20 F.T.R. 155 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 26].

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 248-P v. Intercontinental Packers Ltd. (1993), 117 Sask.R. 250 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 26].

Arthur v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1992), 147 N.R. 288; 98 D.L.R.(4th) 254 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Barthe v. R., [1964] 2 C.C.C. 269 (Que. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 30].

Newfoundland Telephone Co. v. Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (Nfld.), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 623; 134 N.R. 241; 95 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 301 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 30].

Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Disciplin­ary Board (No. 2), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 602; 30 N.R. 119; 50 C.C.C.(2d) 353; 106 D.L.R.(3d) 385; 13 C.R.(3d) 1 (Eng.); 15 C.R.(3d) 315 (Fr.), refd to. [para. 32].

Huerto v. College of Physicians and Sur­geons (Sask.) (1994), 124 Sask.R. 33 (Q.B.), affd. (1996), 141 Sask.R. 3; 114 W.A.C. 3 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Spencer v. Spencer and Prince Albert Board of Police Commissioners (1987), 53 Sask.R. 35 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Misra v. College of Physicians and Sur­geons (Sask.) (1987), 56 Sask.R. 66 (Q.B.), revd. [1988] 5 W.W.R. 333; 70 Sask.R. 116 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Huziak et al. v. Andrychuk et al. (1977), 1 C.R.(3d) 132 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 32].

Vance v. Hardit Corp. and Residential Tenancy Commission (1985), 12 O.A.C. 223; 18 Admin. L.R. 111 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 35].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3; 177 N.R. 325, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79; 49 C.R.(3d) 97; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 37].

Consolidated-Bathurst Packaging Ltd. v. Inter­national Woodworkers of America, Local 2-69 and Labour Relations Board (Ont.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 282; 105 N.R. 161; 38 O.A.C. 321; 68 D.L.R.(4th) 524, refd to. [para. 37].

Manning (E.A.) Ltd. et al. v. Ontario Se­curities Commission (1995), 80 O.A.C. 321; 125 D.L.R.(4th) 305 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1995), 193 N.R. 398; 88 O.A.C. 155; 125 D.L.R.(4th) vii (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 37].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Article, What is This Thing Called Judi­cial Review (1995), generally [para. 6].

Vancise, Is Double Breasting Still in Style - Judicial Review Beyond Lester, Paper delivered to the Canadian Bar Associ­ation (November 1994), generally [para. 6].

Counsel:

M.C. Phillips, for the applicants;

J.P. Malone, for the respondent, Regina Exhibition Association Ltd.;

B.J. Hornsberger, Q.C., for the respondent, Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board.

This application was heard by Klebuc, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on De­cem­ber 10, 1996.