Dougald E. Brown

The Plaintiffs, representing Air Ontario pilots, brought a class action against the Defendants, representing Air Canada pilots, alleging unlawful act conspiracy, intentional interference with economic interests, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent misrepresentation.

The dispute arose from the failure to implement a merged pilot seniority list following an arbitration award by Michel Picher.

The court dismissed all claims, finding that the Defendants' conduct was not unlawful, there was no intention to injure, no fiduciary duty was owed to the Plaintiffs, and the representations made were not actionable.

Furthermore, the court found that the Plaintiffs suffered no damages as Air Canada would never have agreed to the merged seniority list.

The applicants sought judicial review of a policy decision by the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Board (OMERS) which directed that amounts paid to firefighters in lieu of paid statutory holidays are not to be included in 'contributory earnings' for pension purposes.

OMERS took the position that such payments constituted 'overtime', which is excluded from contributory earnings under the applicable regulation.

The Divisional Court applied a standard of reasonableness and found that OMERS's interpretation of the term 'overtime' was reasonable, as it fell within the Board's expertise in managing and administering the pension fund.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their third party claim against the respondent.

The motion judge had concluded that Captain Pulley had not been designated within the meaning of an Indemnity and that a paragraph of the Indemnity applied only to claims by non-union members against union members.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge improperly weighed evidence and drew inferences of fact, particularly given the absence of evidence based on personal knowledge from the respondent concerning the practice of making designations.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment set aside, and costs of $15,000 awarded to the appellant.

The appellant, a federal public servant, was declared surplus and sought early retirement incentive benefits provided by regulation.

His application was rejected, and he was subsequently laid off.

While his lay-off was arbitrable under the Public Service Staff Relations Act (PSSRA), his claim for benefits was grievable but not arbitrable.

Instead of grieving the denial of benefits, the appellant initiated a negligence action in the Federal Court.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the PSSRA does not explicitly oust the courts' residual jurisdiction, the courts should generally decline to intervene in workplace disputes where Parliament has established a comprehensive statutory scheme, even if that scheme does not provide for independent third-party adjudication.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award finding that its continued use of freelance columnists and reporters violated the collective agreement to the financial detriment of a laid-off editorial employee who had bumped into a lower-paying reporter position.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review.

While acknowledging the employer's argument that the arbitrator's broad interpretation could lead to absurd results in other contexts, the court held that the interpretation was based on the plain meaning of the words and was not clearly irrational.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

In an intended class proceeding arising from a union seniority integration dispute following an airline merger declaration, the appellants sought damages personally against other union members for alleged breach of the union constitution.

The court held that although union constitutions may be analyzed contractually, the contractual bond runs between each member and the membership as a whole, not as one-on-one contracts supporting damages claims against individual members.

The appeal from summary judgment dismissing the contract claim was therefore dismissed.

The cross-appeal was also dismissed because the pleaded conspiracy and unlawful interference claims remained legally distinct and disclosed a genuine issue for trial.

The appellant Institute was the bargaining agent for nurses employed by the federal government in the Northwest Territories.

When the nurses became employees of the territorial government, they became eligible for membership in the respondent Association, which had a statutory monopoly to bargain collectively.

The Institute sought incorporation under the Public Service Act to represent its former members, but the territorial government declined to enact the required legislation.

The Institute applied for a declaration that the incorporation requirement violated freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the statutory monopoly and the requirement of incorporation did not infringe s. 2(d), as the activity of collective bargaining is not constitutionally protected.