G. James Fyshe

The applicants, municipal employees who held public office, were dismissed for cause and brought applications for judicial review claiming a denial of natural justice.

Following the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Dunsmuir, the applicants commenced a wrongful dismissal action and sought to consolidate or stay the judicial review applications.

The respondent municipality moved to quash the applications.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the applicants' employment was governed by contract law and did not fall within the narrow public law exceptions recognized in Dunsmuir.

The court deferred the costs of the applications until the wrongful dismissal action was resolved on the merits.

The moving party sought leave to appeal two interlocutory orders: one temporarily staying the action pending the resolution of related tax proceedings, and another striking claims of conspiracy and misfeasance in public office with leave to amend.

The Divisional Court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decisions and no conflicting decisions warranting leave.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Following an unsuccessful application for judicial review regarding mill closures, the applicants argued that no costs should be awarded due to the public interest nature of the litigation.

The court rejected this argument, noting the applicants had a personal and pecuniary interest in the outcome.

The court awarded costs to the successful respondents, fixing the Ministry's costs at $22,368.68 and reducing Domtar's claimed costs to $12,000 to account for duplication of work among the respondents.

The union appealed from a Divisional Court decision quashing an arbitrator's ruling that he had jurisdiction to determine an employee's entitlement to long-term disability benefits as against an insurer.

The collective agreement required the employer only to maintain the group insurance policy in force and pay premiums, obligations the employer had admittedly fulfilled, and the policy was not incorporated into the collective agreement.

Applying correctness review and the essential character analysis under labour arbitration jurisprudence, the court held the dispute was between the employee and the insurer under the insurance policy, not a dispute arising from the interpretation, application, administration or violation of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator therefore lacked jurisdiction, and also lacked authority to add the insurer to the arbitration.

The appellant company closed its plant and terminated group insurance benefits for retired workers following the expiration of the collective agreement.

The union grieved the termination of benefits.

The company objected to the arbitrator's jurisdiction on the basis that the collective agreement had expired.

The arbitrator found the matter arbitrable.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the arbitrator's decision on jurisdiction must be correct, applying a pragmatic and functional approach.

The Court further held that retirement benefits can vest and survive the expiration of a collective agreement, allowing the grievance to proceed.