Winnipeg (City) and Winnipeg Police Department v. Manitoba Police Commission and Irvine, (1980) 3 Man.R.(2d) 161 (CA)

• Judge: Freedman, C.J.M., Monnin and Huband, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: March 26, 1980
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1980), 3 Man.R.(2d) 161 (CA)

Winnipeg v. Police Comm. (1980), 3 Man.R.(2d) 161 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Winnipeg, City of and Winnipeg Police Department v. Manitoba Police Commission and Irvine

Indexed As: Winnipeg (City) and Winnipeg Police Department v. Manitoba Police Commission and Irvine

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Freedman, C.J.M., Monnin and Huband, JJ.A.

March 26, 1980.

Summary:

This case arose out of an agreement between a police officer, who was a member of a police union, and the Winnipeg Police Department. The Winnipeg Police Department agreed to pay the officer to attend a law school in return for the officer's agreement to work for the Winnipeg Police Department as a lawyer for five years following admission to the bar. The agreement was made without the knowledge of the union or its members. The union filed a policy grievance requesting that the assignment of the police officer to attend law school be revoked. The grievance was dismissed by the Acting Chief of Police. The union appealed to the Board of Commissioners of the City of Winnipeg. The Board of Commissioners allowed the grievance and rescinded the assignment of the police officer to attend law school. The police officer appealed to the Manitoba Police Commission.

The Manitoba Police Commission allowed the appeal and held that the agreement between the police officer and the Winnipeg Police Department was a valid contract. The Winnipeg Police Department and the City of Winnipeg applied to the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench for an order of certiorari and for an order to quash the decision of the Manitoba Police Commission.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application and held that the agreement between the police officer and the Winnipeg Police Department was invalid. The Court of Queen's Bench also declared that the Manitoba Police Commission acted beyond its jurisdiction when it declared that the agreement was valid. The police officer appealed to the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed that the agreement was invalid insofar as it conflicted with the collective agreement between the police officer's union and the City of Winnipeg.

Labour Law - Topic 6402

Collective agreement - Effect of collective agreement on private employment contracts - A Winnipeg police officer, who was a member of a police union, signed an agreement to work for the Winnipeg Police Department for five years as a lawyer in return for the department paying the officer to attend law school - The agreement was made without the knowledge of the union or its members - The union applied for a declaration that the agreement was invalid - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the agreement was invalid because it conflicted with the collective agreement between the union and the City of Winnipeg - The Court of Appeal stated that private contracts between a union member and his employer are invalid insofar as such contracts conflict with a collective agreement - See paragraphs 25 to 34.

Administrative Law - Topic 5004

Judicial review - Certiorari - Grounds for granting certiorari - Error of jurisdiction - The Manitoba Court of Appeal set aside a decision of the Manitoba Police Commission where the Commission decided a question which was not submitted to it - See paragraphs 50 to 58.

Estoppel - Topic 10

General principles - Parties - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that a stranger to an agreement can neither take advantage nor be bound by a plea of estoppel based on the agreement - See paragraphs 36 to 39.

Labour Law - Topic 9670

Public service labour relations - Collective agreement - Grievances - Procedure - Application of rules of natural justice - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that the rules of natural justice did not apply to grievance procedures, intended to be informal settlement procedures, which were required prior to an arbitration of a grievance - See paragraphs 44 to 46.

Cases Noticed:

Syndicat Catholique des Employés de Magasins de Quebec Inc. v. Compagnie Paquet Ltée, [1959] S.C.R. 206, refd to. [para. 27].

Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Zambri, [1962] S.C.R. 609, refd to. [para. 28].

McGavin Toastmaster Ltd. v. Ainscough et al. (1975), 4 N.R. 618; 54 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 30].

General Motors of Canada Ltd. v. Brunet, 13 N.R. 233; [1977] 2 S.C.R. 537, refd to. [para. 30].

Re Hoogendoorn and Greening Metal Products and Screening Equipment Co. et al. (1968), 65 D.L.R.(2d) 641, refd to. [para. 44].

Anisminic Ltd. v. The Foreign Compensation Commission, [1969] 1 All E.R. 208, refd to. [para. 52].

Statutes Noticed:

Labour Relations Act, R.S.M. 1970, c. L-10, sect. 35, sect. 64 [para. 33].

Counsel:

G.D. Parkinson, for the respondent/appellant Irvine;

R.R. Edge, for the applicant/respondent The Winnipeg Police Association;

M. Meyers, Q.C., for the applicant/respondent The Winnipeg Police Senior Officers' Association;

F.N. Steele and D.W. Buhr, for the applicants/respondents The City of Winnipeg and The Winnipeg Police Department.

This appeal was heard by FREEDMAN, C.J.M., MONNIN and HUBAND, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal on December 13, 1979.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by HUBAND, J.A., on March 26, 1980.