COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
LABROSSE, WEILER AND SHARPE JJ.A.
B E T W E E N :
DOUGLAS SLOAN
Douglas Sloan, in person
Plaintiff/Appellant
-and-
THE YORK REGION DISTRICT
SCHOOL BOARD
Roy Filion
for the respondents
(York District School Board et al)
Defendant/ Respondent
-and-
GARY MICHAEL Personally and as a
vice-principal of the York Region
District School Board
Defendant/ Respondent
-and-
MICHAEL MAGARREY Personally and
as a principal of the York Region
District School Board
Defendant/Respondent
-and-
HELEN FOX Personally and as a
principal of the York Region
District School Board
Defendant/Respondent
-and-
Unknown others Personally and as
agents or officers of the York
Region District School Board
Defendants/Respondents
Heard: July 20, 2000
On appeal from the judgment of Lamek J. dated August 26, 1999.
BY THE COURT:
1The appellant appeals from the decision of Lamek J. That
decision stayed the defamation action filed by the appellant on
the basis that the subject matter of the dispute was covered by a
collective agreement and that an action in the courts was
foreclosed.
2The essential character of the dispute between the appellant
and the respondent
board arises from alleged disciplinary actions taken by the
respondent board against the appellant in relation to his
employment. The employment relationship is governed by a
collective agreement, which includes a just cause provision as
well as a grievance procedure and binding arbitration.
3In our view, the matters complained of by the appellant are
matters that are subject to the collective agreement. This court
held in Bhaduria v. Toronto Board of Education, [1999] O.J. 582
that where the essential character of the claim for defamation
pertains to termination from a teaching position, it arises under
the collective agreement. That is the situation here. The claim
for defamation is based on unfavourable performance reviews of
the appellant, as a teacher, that led to his termination. Lamek
J. was correct in concluding that the claim was governed by
Bhaduria and a similar decision of this court in Giorno v. Pappas
(1999), 1999 1161 (ON CA), 42 O.R. (3d) 626, as well as the general principles
articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Weber v. Ontario
Hydro (1995), 1995 108 (SCC), 125 D.L.R. (4th) 583. As those cases hold, where
the essence of the claim arises from a dispute that is subject to
the collective agreement, a party in the position of the
appellant cannot escape the arbitration regime under the
collective agreement by attaching to his claim a label such as
“defamation”.
4There is no merit in the argument that the exclusive
jurisdiction of the arbitrator offends s.96 of the Constitution
Act. The dispute between the appellant and the respondent board
is properly characterized as a labour relations matter. As with
the jurisdiction issue, the appellant cannot escape that
characterization by attaching to his claim the label
“defamation”. It is well-established that the jurisdiction of
arbitrators in labour relations matters does not offend s.96.
5Accordingly the appeal must be dismissed.
Released: July 25, 2000
“J.M. Labrosse J.A.”
“K.M. Weiler J.A”
“Robert J. Sharpe
