MTS v. MFCW (1987), 46 Man.R.(2d) 241 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
…………………….
Attorney General of Manitoba v. Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd., Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers, Local 832 and Manitoba Labour Board
(19609)
Indexed As: Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd. v. Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers, Local 832 and Labour Board (Man.)
Supreme Court of Canada
Beetz, McIntyre, Lamer, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.
March 5, 1987.
Summary:
A union was certified as bargaining agent for a unit of employees of Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd. (the employer). No agreement was reached between the parties and eventually the union applied to have the Manitoba Labour Board impose a compulsory first agreement. The Board set a date for the hearing regarding the first agreement. Prior to the hearing the employer applied to challenge, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, those sections of the Labour Relations Act which required the inclusion of certain provisions in all collective agreements and which permitted the Board to settle such first agreements. The employer applied for a stay of the Board’s proceedings pending the outcome of the challenge. The Board refused to grant the stay. The employer applied to the court for the stay.
The Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, in a decision reported in 36 Man.R.(2d) 152, also refused to grant the stay. The employer appealed.
The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in a decision reported in 37 Man.R.(2d) 180, granted a temporary stay of proceedings pending its deliberation on the matter of the stay itself. Subsequently, in a decision reported in 37 Man.R.(2d) 181, the Court of Appeal granted the stay pending litigation on the Charter issue. The Attorney General of Manitoba appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and set aside the stay of proceedings as ordered by the Manitoba Court of Appeal.
Civil Rights – Topic 8587
Charter – Practice – Stay of proceedings pending litigation of Charter issue – The case of American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] 1 All E.R. 504, held that all that was necessary to obtain an interim injunction was to satisfy the court that there was a serious question to be tried as opposed to a frivolous or vexatious claim – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that this test was sufficient to govern the granting of an interim stay of proceedings (a remedy similar in nature to an interim injunction), where the constitutionality of legislation is being challenged in court by the plaintiff – See paragraphs 31, 33.
Civil Rights – Topic 8587
Charter – Practice – Stay of proceedings pending litigation of Charter issue – The Supreme Court of Canada held that in determining whether to grant an interlocutory stay of proceedings where the constitutionality of legislation is being challenged by the plaintiff, no stay or injunction should be granted unless, in the balance of convenience, the public interest is considered and weighed together with interests of private litigants – See paragraphs 79 to 90.
Courts – Topic 5683
Provincial courts – Jurisdiction or powers – Re constitutionality of statutes – Power to grant stay of proceedings – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a court has jurisdiction to order a stay of proceedings where the constitutionality of a legislative provision is challenged in court by a plaintiff – See paragraphs 26 to 27.
Injunctions – Topic 1600
Interlocutory or interim injunctions – General principles – The Supreme Court of Canada set out the tests to be used when considering whether to grant an interim injunction (and consequently, an interim stay of proceedings, which is a remedy of the same nature) – See paragraphs 28 to 35.
Practice – Topic 5275
Trials – Stay of proceedings – General – [See Injunctions – Topic 1600 above].
Practice – Topic 5277
Trials – Stay of proceedings – When available – [See first Civil Rights – Topic 8587 above].
Practice – Topic 5277
Trials – Stay of proceedings – When available – [See second Civil Rights – Topic 8587 above].
Practice – Topic 5283
Trials – Stay of proceedings – Jurisdiction – [See Courts – Topic 5683 above].
Statutes – Topic 2267
Interpretation – Presumptions and rules in aid – Presumption in favour of validity – The Supreme Court of Canada held that there is no presumption of constitutional validity respecting legislation which is being challenged under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – The court stated that “the innovative and evolutive character of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms conflicts with the idea that a legislative provision can be presumed to be consistent with the Charter” – See paragraphs 11 to 25.
Cases Noticed:
Reference re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [para. 16].
R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [para. 18].
R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 19].
R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; 32 M.V.R. 153, refd to. [para. 20].
Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 27 B.L.R. 297; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; 84 D.T.C. 6467, refd to. [para. 21].
McKay v. The Queen, [1965] S.C.R. 798, refd to. [para. 25].
Re Federal Republic of Germany and Rauca (1983), 145 D.L.R.(3d) 638, refd to. [para. 25].
Black v. Law Society of Alberta, [1986] 3 W.W.R. 590; 68 A.R. 259 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].
Jabour v. Law Society of British Columbia et al. and Attorney General of Canada et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 307; 43 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 27].
Boeckh v. Gowganda-Queen Mines, Ltd. (1912), 6 D.L.R. 292, refd to. [para. 28].
Battle Creek Toasted Corn Flake Co. v. Kellogg Toasted Corn Flake Co. (1923), 55 O.L.R. 127, refd to. [para. 29].
Metropolitan Toronto School Board et al. v. Ontario et al. (1985), 13 O.A.C. 113; 6 C.P.C.(2d) 281, refd to. [para. 29].
Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Co. v. Ball, [1953] O.R. 843, refd to. [para. 31].
American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] 1 All E.R. 504, appld. [para. 31].
Feigelman et al. v. Aetna Financial Services Ltd. et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 2; 56 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 31].
Home Oil Distributors Ltd. v. Attorney General for British Columbia, [1939] 1 D.L.R. 573 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].
Weisfeld v. R. (1985), 16 C.R.R. 24, refd to. [para. 42].
Turnmel v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (1985), 16 C.R.R. 9, refd to. [para. 42].
Marchand v. Simcoe County Board of Education (1984), 10 C.R.R. 169, refd to. [para. 43].
Gould v. Attorney General of Canada, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 124; 53 N.R. 394, affming. [1984] 1 F.C. 1133; 54 N.R. 232, revsing, [1984] 1 F.C. 1119, refd to. [para. 45].
Cayne v. Global Natural Resources plc., [1984] 1 All E.R. 225, refd to. [para. 47].
R. v. Jones, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284; 69 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 47].
Quebec Association of Protestant School Boards v. Attorney General of Quebec, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 66; 54 N.R. 196, refd to. [para. 49].
Morgentaler v. Ackroyd (1983), 42 O.R.(2d) 659, refd to. [para. 53].
Société de développement de la Baie James c. Chef Robert Kanatewat, [1975] C.A. 166, revsing. [1974] R.P. 38, refd to. [para. 58].
Procureur général du Québec c. Lavigne, [1980] C.A. 25; revsing, [1980] C.S. 318, refd to. [para. 60].
Greater Hull School Board v. Attorney General of Quebec, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 575; 56 N.R. 99, refd to. [para. 60].
Pacific Trollers Association v. Attorney General of Canada, [1984] 1 F.C. 846 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 65].
Canada v. Fishing Vessel Owners’ Association of B.C., [1985] 1 F.C. 791; 61 N.R. 128 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].
Smith v. Inner London Education Authority, [1978] 1 All E.R. 411, refd to. [para. 66].
Ontario Jockey Club v. Smith (1922), 22 O.W.N. 373, consd. [para. 68].
Campbell Motors Ltd. v. Gordon, [1946] 4 D.L.R. 36 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 69].
Black & Company v. Law Society of Alberta (1983), 42 A.R. 118; 144 D.L.R.(3d) 439 (Q.B.), revsd. (1984), 67 A.R. 244; 8 D.L.R.(4th) 346 (C.A.), consd. [para. 71].
Bregzis v. Governing Council of the University of Toronto (1986), 9 C.C.E.L. 282 (Ont. S.C.), consd. [para. 76].
Vancouver General Hospital v. Stoffman (1985), 23 D.L.R.(4th) 146 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 77].
Home Oil Distributors Ltd. v. Attorney General of British Columbia, [1940] S.C.R. 444, consd. [para. 85].
Société Asbestos Ltée c. Société nationale de l’amiante, [1979] C.A. 342, consd. [para. 86].
Hadmor Productions Ltd. v. Hamilton, [1982] 1 All E.R. 1042, consd. [para. 108].
Garden Cottage Foods Ltd. v. Milk Marketing Board, [1983] 2 All E.R. 770 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 108].
Statutes Noticed:
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 (Imp.), 36 and 37 Vict., c. 66, sect. 24(5), sect. 25(8) [para. 28].
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [paras. 44, 47, 49, 87, 112]; sect. 2(a) [para. 49]; sect. 2(b), sect. 2(d), sect. 7 [para. 92]; sect. 24 [para. 88].
Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-25, art. 751, art. 752 [para. 51].
Labour Relations Act, S.M. 1984-85, c. 21, sect. 37 [para. 92].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Gibson, Dale, The Law of the Charter: General Principles (1986), pp. 56, 58 [para. 24]; 57, 58, 186-188 [para. 25].
Côté, P.-A., La préséance de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, in La Charte canadienne des droits et libertés: Concepts et impacts (1984), pp. 124-126 [para. 25].
McLeod, R., et al. (eds.), The Canadian Charter of Rights: The Prosecution and Defence of Criminal and other Statutory Offences, vol. 1, pp. 2-198 – 2-209 [para. 25].
Hogg, P., Constitutional Law of Canada (2nd Ed. 1985), p. 327 [para. 25].
Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th Ed.), vol. 24, para. 1033, p. 577 [para. 28].
Carlson, P., Granting an Interlocutory Injunction: What is the Test? (1982), 12 Man. L.J. 109 [para. 32].
Rogers, B.M., and Hately, G.W., Getting the Pre-Trial Injunction (1982), 60 Can. Bar Rev. 1, [para. 32].
Sharpe, R.J., Injunctions and Specific Performance (1983), pp. 66-67 [para. 32]; 177 [para. 50].
Hanbury and Maudsley, Modern Equity (12th Ed.), pp. 736-743 [para. 33].
Magnet, J.E., Jurisdictional Fact, Constitutional Fact and the Presumption of Constitutionality (1980), 11 Man. L.J. 21 [para. 48].
Counsel:
Stuart Whitley and Valerie J. Matthews-Lemieux, for the appellant;
Walter L. Ritchie, Q.C., and Robin Kersey for the respondent, Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Limited;
A.R. McGregor, Q.C., and D.M. Shrom for the respondent, the Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers, Local 832;
David Gisser, for the respondent, the Manitoba Labour Board.
Solicitors of Record:
Tanner Elton, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the appellant;
Thompson, Dorfman, Sweatman, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the respondent, Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Limited;
Simkin, Gallagher, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the respondent, Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers, Local 832;
David Gisser, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the respondent, the Manitoba Labour Board.
This appeal was heard before Beetz, McIntyre, Lamer, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada on June 20, 1986. The decision of the Supreme Court was delivered by Beetz, J., on March 5, 1987.
