I.W.A.-Canada, Local 2693 v. Longlac Wood Industries Inc., 2000 CanLII 4278 (ON CA)

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

DATE: 20000713

DOCKET: C31212

CARTHY, GOUDGE AND O'CONNOR JJ.A.

B E T W E E N :

I.W.A.-CANADA, LOCAL 2693

Applicant

(Appellant)

and

LONGLAC WOOD INDUSTRIES INC.

Respondent

(Respondent in

Appeal)

Paul J.J. Cavalluzzo

for the appellant

I.H. Fraser

for the respondent

Heard: December 20 and

21, 1999

On appeal from the judgment of the Divisional Court (O’Leary,

Campbell and Salhany JJ.) dated September 18, 1998.

GOUDGE J.A.:

1This is an appeal by the Union, I.W.A.-Canada, Local 2693

from the decision of the Divisional Court dismissing an

application to quash the arbitration award between the union and

respondent employer. It was heard together with the appeal in

London Life Insurance Company v. Dubreuil Brothers Employees

Association, 2000 OCA C31391 (“London Life”) and raises

essentially the same issue. For the reasons given in London

Life, supra, I would reach the same conclusion as I did there.

In the result I would dismiss the appeal.

2The issue presented to the arbitrator was the arbitrability

of the employee’s claim for weekly indemnity payments under the

insurance policy, which the collective agreement required the

employer to maintain. The arbitrator interpreted the collective

agreement to oblige the employer to do no more than maintain and

pay for the cost of the insurance policy. He therefore concluded

that the employee’s claim for benefits under the policy was

inarbitrable and indicated that the employee was required to sue

the insurer for that relief.

3The Divisional Court held that it was open to the arbitrator

to interpret the collective agreement as he did and dismissed the

application for judicial review.

4On appeal the appellant argued that in light of the case law

discussed in London Life and particularly Pilon v. International

Minerals and Chemical Corp. (1996), 1996 1178 (ON CA), 31 O.R. (3d) 210 (C.A.),

disputes between an employee and an insurer over benefits payable

under an insurance policy that is required by a collective

agreement are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitrator

even where the employer has fully complied with the collective

agreement. For the reasons given in London Life I disagree. In

this case the employee’s claim against the insurer for benefits

under the policy does not fall within the arbitrator’s exclusive

jurisdiction.

5The arbitrator’s disposition of the grievance in this case

depended upon his interpretation of the collective agreement.

That decision is properly accorded curial deference, on the

standard of patent unreasonableness. Here it was not patently

unreasonable for the arbitrator to interpret the collective

agreement as he did. There was no obligation on the employer

beyond providing and paying for the insurance plan. The union

clearly failed to persuade the arbitrator that the employer had

fallen short of its obligation.

6Since the claim against the insurer was beyond the

arbitrator’s jurisdiction and the grievance raised no arbitrable

claim against the employer, the arbitrator properly dismissed it.

The Divisional Court was correct in dismissing the application

for judicial review.

7I would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs including

those of the motion seeking leave to appeal.