Youngberg et al. v. Discipline Committee of the Alberta Teachers' Association et al., (1977) 8 A.R. 36 (CA)

• Judge: Lieberman, Moir and Haddad, JJ.A.
• Case Date: December 16, 1977
• Citations: (1977), 8 A.R. 36 (CA)

Youngberg v. Teachers Assoc. (1977), 8 A.R. 36 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Youngberg, Tobert, McLeod, Muzyka, Vaughan and Assheton-Smith v. Discipline Committee of the Alberta Teachers' Association, The Alberta Teachers' Association and The Provincial Executive Council of the Alberta Teachers' Association

Indexed As: Youngberg et al. v. Discipline Committee of the Alberta Teachers' Association et al.

Alberta Supreme Court

Appellate Division

Lieberman, Moir and Haddad, JJ.A.

December 16, 1977.

Summary:

This case arose out of the application by several teachers for an order of prohibition to prevent the Discipline Committee of the Alberta Teachers' Association from proceeding with disciplinary charges against them. The Alberta Teachers' Association opposed term appointments of teachers by school boards which the boards had the power to make. The Association started disciplinary proceedings against several teachers who accepted term appointments. The teachers applied for an order of prohibition to stop the disciplinary proceedings on several grounds. The Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, allowed the application. The Trial Division judgment is set out below - see paragraphs 50 to 65. The Discipline Committee and the Association appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the order of prohibition.

Administrative Law - Topic 6407

Judicial review - Prohibition - Limited to judicial or quasi-judicial functions - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that prohibition lies only respecting a judicial or a quasi-judicial function and not to the function by an individual of factfinding, reporting and recommending to the executive council of a professional organization - See paragraph 31.

Administrative Law - Topic 6450

Judicial review - Prohibition - Grounds for granting prohibition - Invalid grounds - Curable defects - A charge of breaching the rules of professional conduct of the Alberta Teachers' Association was brought against several teachers after a fact-finding report was made to the Executive Council of the Association - The teachers sought and obtained an order of prohibition on the grounds inter alia that the charges were inadequate and the teachers did not receive a copy of the fact-finding report - The Alberta Court of Appeal set aside the order of prohibition and held that the teachers should have requested particulars of the charge and a copy of the report before bringing an application for prohibition - See paragraphs 23 to 30.

Education - Topic 6402

Teachers - Discipline - Commencement of disciplinary proceedings - As part of the disciplinary procedure of the Alberta Teachers' Association the Executive Council of the Association was required to appoint an investigating officer to investigate the circumstances and report to the Executive Council - Then "if the investigating officer's report indicates that there are grounds warranting a hearing by the Disciplinary Committee, the Executive Council shall order" a hearing - The report of an investigating officer made no recommendation and it was alleged that the Executive Council therefore had no jurisdiction to proceed - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that it was for the Executive Council to decide if the investigating officer's report "indicates that there are grounds" and that it was not necessary for the officer to recommend disciplinary action for the Discipline Committee to proceed - See paragraphs 32 to 38.

Education - Topic 6410

Teachers - Discipline - Appointment of a discipline committee - Section 8 of the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 362, gave the Alberta Teachers' Association the power to pass bylaws "concerning ... the establishment of a Discipline Committee" - The bylaw was passed to establish the committee and to give the Executive Council power to appoint its members - The Executive Council named the members of the committee several years later when the need arose - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the Discipline Committee was properly appointed and that s. 8 did not require the committee members to be named in the bylaw - See paragraphs 1 to 15.

Education - Topic 6524

Teachers - Discipline - Judicial review - Before proceedings concluded - The Alberta Teachers' Association opposed term appointments by a school board, which the board had the power to make - The Association started disciplinary proceedings against teachers who accepted term appointments from a board - The teachers sought and obtained an order of prohibition to stop the proceedings on the ground inter alia that the Association could not discipline teachers for complying with legal acts by a school board - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that under the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 362, the Association had the power to determine standards of professional conduct and to discipline members for breaches of those standards - The Court of Appeal set aside the order of prohibition and held that the court should not interfere with the performance of the Association's statutory duties, where the procedure which the Association was to follow met the requirements of natural justice and where a statutory appeal lay from any decision - See paragraphs 39 to 48.

Words and Phrases

Concerning - The Alberta Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "concerning" as found in the Alberta Teaching Profession Act - The Court of Appeal stated that the word "concerning" means "about", "regarding", "in reference to", "in relation to", "pertaining to" or "involving" - See paragraph 11.

Cases Noticed:

Edwards and Woolfenden v. Alberta Association of Architects et al., [1975] 3 W.W.R. 38, dist. [para. 23].

Sen v. Discipline Committee of College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan (1969), 69 W.W.R.(N.S.) 201; 6 D.L.R.(3d) 520, appld. [para. 25].

Wilson v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1974] 5 W.W.R. 642, appld. [para. 25].

Samuels v. Council of College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan et al. (1966), 57 W.W.R.(N.S.) 385, appld. [para. 31].

Calgary Power Ltd. and Halmrast v. Coppithorne, [1959] S.C.R. 24, appld. [para. 31].

Howarth v. National Parole Board (1974), 3 N.R. 391; 18 C.C.C.(2d) 385 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 31].

Board of Trustees of the Edmonton Public School District No. 7 v. Alberta Teachers' Association (1976), 2 A.R. 230, refd to. [para. 42].

Re Lilly et al. and Re Gairdner et al., [1974] 2 O.R.(2d) 74, appld. [para. 47].

Statutes Noticed:

School Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 329, sect. 82 [para. 41].

Teaching Profession Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 362, sect. 5(1) [para. 60]; sect. 8 [paras. 3,7]; sect. 9, sect. 11 [para. 2]; sect. 15(1) [para. 3].

Counsel:

C.P. Clarke, for the appellants;

E.L. Bunnell and D.A. Sulyma, for the respondent.

This case was heard before LIEBERMAN, MOIR and HADDAD, JJ.A., of the Alberta Supreme Court, Appellate Division.

On December 16, 1977, MOIR, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Appellate Division: