Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: Canada (Attorney General) v. Yeates, 2011 ONCA 83

DATE: 20110131

DOCKET: C52410

BEFORE: Armstrong, Epstein and Karakatsanis JJ.A.

BETWEEN

William Yeates

Appellant (Plaintiff)

and

Attorney General of Canada, Canada Revenue Agency, Joanne Todesco, Alan Puzeris, Steve Wilhelm, Tanse Leung, Paul Loo

Respondents (Defendants)

COUNSEL:

William Yeates, in person

Debra Prupas and Gillian Patterson, for the respondents

Heard and released orally: January 25, 2011

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Eva Frank of the Superior Court of Justice, dated June 9, 2010.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant appeals the order of Justice Frank in the Superior Court striking his statement of claim against his employer, Canada Revenue Agency, and five employees of the Agency. His claim is framed in defamation and other torts. The substance of his claims arise from disputes relating to his employment with the Canada Revenue Agency.

[2] The appellant’s workplace disputes are governed by the Public Service Labour Relations Act pursuant to which he must seek redress through the grievance procedure in his collective agreement. The Public Service Labour Relations Act has taken away the right of action in s. 236(1) of the Act, which provides:

The right of an employee to seek redress by way of grievance for any dispute relating to his or her terms or conditions of employment is in lieu of any right of action that the employee may have in relation to any act or omission giving rise to the dispute.

[3] In Bron v. Canada (Attorney General) (2010), 2010 ONCA 71, 315 D.L.R. (4th) 46 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 32, this court addressed the scope of s. 236 as follows:

Section 236 speaks directly to workplace complaints that are grievable under the legislation. For those complaints, even when there is no access to third party adjudication, the grievance procedure operates “in lieu of any right of action”.

[4] The appellant also alleges certain breaches of the Charter and raises the constitutionality of s. 236(1) of the Act. Those allegations are not included in the statement of claim. The motion judge declined to deal with them. We agree that those allegations are not properly before the court.

[5] In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The respondents shall have their costs fixed in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

“Robert P. Armstrong J.A.”

“G. J. Epstein J.A.”

“Karakatsanis J.A.”