DATE: 20060829

DOCKET: C44609

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

NANCY FORWARD ARIAS (Plaintiff/Appellant) – and – THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, STAPHAN ROBERGE and SUSAN HARDIMAN (Defendants/Respondents)

BEFORE:

BORINS, JURIANSZ, LAFORME JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

Emilio S. Binavince

for the appellant

Patrick Bendin & Tatiana Sandler

for the Attorney General of Canada and Staphan Roberge

HEARD:

August 17, 2006

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Albert J. Roy of the Superior Court of Justice dated November 29, 2005.

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] The appellant is a civilian employee of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and a unionized member of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. She commenced a civil action against a co-worker, a supervisor and the Attorney General of Canada. She seeks damages from her co-worker for intimidation, harassment and abuse of process committed largely, but not exclusively, at the workplace. The essential character of her claims against the supervisor and the Attorney General is that they did not protect her from the co-worker and failed to provide her with a harassment free workplace.

[2] The motion judge dismissed her action against the supervisor and the Attorney General on the basis that her claim against them related to a workplace dispute governed by a collective agreement. He observed that Public Service Staff Relations Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-35 (“PSSRA”) established an exclusive dispute resolution system to deal with such disputes. He did not strike the claim as against the co-worker who had been noted in default.

[3] The binding jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada in Vaughan v. Canada, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 929, and of this court in K.A. v. Ottawa, 2006 15128 (ON CA), [2006] O.J. No. 1827, make clear that the motion judge decided the matter correctly. Courts should defer to the PSSRA grievance procedure, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Webber v. Ontario Hydro, 1995 108 (SCC), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929, in respect to matters involving employment relations: Vaughn, para. 33. In this case, just as in K.A. v. Ottawa, the alleged wrongs relate directly to conduct in the work place and the employer’s obligation to provide a safe working environment. And, as was held in that case, a work place dispute that alleges an employer failed to provide a safe working environment for its employees is governed by the collective agreement.

[4] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs set in the amount of $3,500 inclusive of disbursement and GST.

“S. Borins J.A.”

“H.S. LaForme J.A.”

“R.G. Juriansz J.A.”