CITATION: Ellins et al. v. McDonald et al., 2012 ONSC 4831
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 379/11
DATE: 20120925
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
CUNNINGHAM A.C.J., JENNINGS AND HARVISON-YOUNG JJ.
B E T W E E N:
WILLIAM ELLINS et al.
Niki Lundquist for the Applicants
Applicants
- and -
LARRY MCDONALD et al.
Stephen J. Moreau for the Respondents
Respondents
HEARD at Toronto: January 18, 2012
BY THE COURT
[1] The applicants seek judicial review of a decision of the Small Claims Court which stayed the action in order to permit the Ontario Labour Relations Board (the OLRB) to determine whether it has jurisdiction to deal with this dispute.
[2] The issue centres around CAW Canada’s raid whereby it replaced the Teamsters as bargaining agents for employees of Auto Warehousing Company of Canada (AWC).
[3] The claim in the Small Claims Court was brought after the Respondents cancelled the health and welfare benefits of the individual applicants and refused to reimburse them.
[4] Now, before us, the applicants seek a declaration that the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction over this matter and an Order of Mandamus that the matter be heard in that court. Alternatively, they seek an Order returning the matter back to the Small Claims Court for a rehearing of the motion with directions.
[5] The applicants say the Small Claims Court should hear the matter as it is brought by individuals seeking payment of their claims from the Trust which administers their benefits. In other words, they say this is not a Labour relations matter, but rather claims brought in their individual capacities engaging trust, tort and contract law.
[6] The respondents successfully brought a motion before the Small Claims Court judge for a stay, arguing that the OLRB had exclusive jurisdiction.
[7] The first issue we must determine is whether this Court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Clearly, we have appellate jurisdiction over final Small Claims Court orders. The respondents argue that the stay was interlocutory and hence, no appeal lies to the Divisional Court from such an interlocutory order (assuming the Small Claims Court had jurisdiction to make such an order). Since under s.106 of the Court of Justice Act (CJA), the Small Claims Court has the statutory jurisdiction to stay proceedings, they say the Divisional Court should not review such an order.
[8] We are persuaded that we do indeed have jurisdiction to review decisions of the Small Claims Court including interlocutory orders (see Peck v. Residential Property Management Inc., OJ 3064 (Div. Ct.)).
[9] We are satisfied the Small Claims Court judge had jurisdiction to make the Order he did and that there is no suggestion it offended principles of natural justice. We are all of the view that this matter should be first brought to the attention of the OLRB, the body with exclusive jurisdiction to hear labour relations issues. At the very least, the OLRB should be given the opportunity of determining whether indeed it has jurisdiction in this case. For this reason, we make no further comment on the issue of jurisdiction. This case is really about the employer’s violation of the collective agreement as suggested by the respondents.
[10] This application is therefore dismissed.
[11] The respondent is entitled to costs which we fix at $2,500 all inclusive.
Cunningham A.C.J.
Jennings J.
Harvison-Young J.
Released:
CITATION: Ellins et al. v. McDonald et al., 2012 ONSC 4831
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 379/11
DATE: 20120925
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
CUNNINGHAM A.C.J., JENNINGS AND HARVISON-YOUNG JJ.
B E T W E E N:
WILLIAM ELLINS et al.
Applicants
- and –
LARRY MCDONALD et al.
Respondents
ENDORSEMENT
Released: September 25, 2012