DATE: 20060714

DOCKET: C44400

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

GARY RENAUD (Plaintiff (Appellant)) – and – THE TOWN OF LASALLE POLICE ASSOCIATION, CAMILLE MELOCHE, CAMERON GRABER, PETER CHEVALIER, JOHN GARSWOOD, JAMES WRIGHT, KEVIN BEAUDOIN, JOHN MATIS, LARRY SHAW, IAN RUSSELL and LASALLE POLICE SERVICES BOARD (Defendants (Respondents)) – and – ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA and HALIFAX INSURANCE COMPANY (Third Parties (Respondents))

BEFORE:

O’CONNOR A.C.J.O., LABROSSE and FELDMAN JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

Luigi DiPierdomenico and Mikael Dalimonte

for the appellant

Alex Szalkai

for the respondents

Stephen Yoker

for the respondent LaSalle Police Association

HEARD & RELEASED ORALLY:

July 7, 2006

On appeal from the order of Justice G. I. Thomson of the Superior Court of Justice dated October 6, 2005.

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] This is an appeal from the decision of G. I. Thomson J. dismissing the action of the appellant on the grounds that the Superior Court did not have jurisdiction to try this action which arose out of his employment relationship and is governed by the terms of the Collective Agreement between the LaSalle Police Board and the LaSalle Police Association.

[2] The appellant is a police officer employed by the Board and a member of the Association. The respondents are the Association, the Board and police officers of various ranks, some of whom are also executive of the Association. Each respondent is alleged to have harmed the appellant. Among other things they, or some of them, are alleged to have:

• failed to promote and demoted the appellant;
• failed to exercise their powers and duties with respect to complaints and grievances;
• disregarded the substantive and procedural process and code of the Police Services Act and regulations;
• imposed sanctions, penalties and discipline against the appellant in violation of the Act;
• complained about the appellant’s qualification;
• alleged discreditable conduct;
• prevented his promotion;
• charged him with misconduct;
• fabricated grievances and complaints;
• failed to give the appellant a fair representation as a member of the Association: and
• failed to reimburse the appellant for legal fees.

[3] The allegations are all workplace related.

[4] At all material times, there was a Collective Agreement between the Board and the Association which provided a grievance procedure and provided for final arbitration to resolve differences arising from the Collective Agreement and any violation thereof.

[5] In our view, the motion judge was correct in finding that the appellant’s complaints arise out of his employment relationship with the Board, which is governed by the terms of the Collective Agreement and the specific rights, duties and obligations between the parties that are set forth in the Police Services Act and Regulations. The established jurisprudence is clear that in light of the nature of the dispute and the ambit of the Collective Agreement, the courts do not have jurisdiction to deal with the dispute between the parties. See for example Regina Police Assn. Inc. v. Regina (City) Board of Police Commissioners, 2000 SCC 14, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 360 (SCC).

[6] In Abbott v. Collins, [2003] O.J. No. 1881 (C.A.), this court confirmed that the scheme created by the Act and Regulations and the Collective Agreement is intended by the legislature to provide a comprehensive scheme to govern all aspects of the employment relationship between the appellant and the respondents.

[7] We cannot accept the position of the appellant that he had no forum to which to bring his complaint that the Association improperly refused to bring his grievances before an arbitrator under the Collective Agreement. Section 123(1) of the Act provides that at the request of a “party”, a conciliation officer shall be appointed if a difference arises between the “parties”. The respondents accept that that forum is or was available to the appellant. We agree that the word “party” should be given a broad and liberal interpretation in order to facilitate the intention of the legislature that the Act together with the Collective Agreement provide a complete and comprehensive scheme for police officers relating to their employment relationship.

[8] The appeal is dismissed without costs.