COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

DATE: 20000725

DOCKET: C32806

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:

[1] The 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.

[2] The 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.

[3] In 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”.

[4] There 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.

[5] Accordingly the appeal must be dismissed.

Released: July 25, 2000

“J.M. Labrosse J.A.”

“K.M. Weiler J.A”

“Robert J. Sharpe