James McMahon

The Crown and co-defendants moved to strike a crossclaim filed by a former correctional officer, John Barbro, which included claims for malicious prosecution, defamation, and bad faith wrongful dismissal.

The moving parties argued that the essential character of these claims arose from a collective agreement and thus fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB).

The court applied the Weber framework, finding that the dispute's essential character was workplace-related, stemming from an incident, subsequent investigation, and disciplinary process governed by the collective agreement.

The court rejected arguments for concurrent jurisdiction based on the MCSA and PACA, and declined to exercise residual discretion.

The motion to strike the crossclaim (except for contribution and indemnity) was granted, with leave for Mr. Barbro to file an amended statement of defence and crossclaim.

The Crown sought to stay a Master's order requiring it to file a comprehensive statement of defence to a cross-claim by John Barbro, pending an appeal of that order.

The Crown argued the court lacked jurisdiction over the cross-claim, and that complying with the order would render the appeal moot and potentially breach settlement privilege.

Applying the three-part test for a stay, the court found a serious issue to be tried, that failure to stay would irreparably harm the Crown's appeal by rendering it moot, and that the balance of convenience favored granting the stay.

The motion to stay was granted.