Police Assoc. v. Police Commrs. (2000), 189 Sask.R. 23 (SCC);
216 W.A.C. 23
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Temp. Cite: [2000] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.001
Board of Police Commissioners of the City of Regina (appellant) v. Regina Police Association Inc. and Greg Shotton (respondents)
(26871; 2000 SCC 14)
Indexed As: Regina Police Association Inc. and Shotton v. Board of Police Commissioners of Regina
Supreme Court of Canada
L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour, JJ.
March 2, 2000.
Summary:
The Regina Chief of Police was about to institute discipline proceedings against Sgt. Shotton. Shotton tendered his resignation. Shotton subsequently attempted to withdraw his resignation, but the Chief would not permit him to do so. The union grieved with respect to the Chief’s refusal to accept Shotton’s withdrawal of his resignation. The grievance was denied and the union requested that the matter proceed to an arbitrator. An arbitrator ruled that she did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute because the grievance concerned the discipline and dismissal of a police officer, a matter which was governed by the procedures set out in the Police Act and Regulations. Shotton and the Regina Police Association applied for judicial review of the arbitrator’s decision.
The Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed the application. Shotton and the Police Association appealed.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, Vancise, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal and quashed the arbitrator’s decision (See 168 Sask.R. 197; 173 W.A.C. 197). The court held that the arbitrator did have jurisdiction to hear and decide the grievance pursuant to the collective agreement and that the parties were free to select another arbitrator. The Board of Police Commissioners of the City of Regina appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the arbitrator was correct in finding that she did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute.
Arbitration – Topic 7950
Judicial review – Jurisdiction of arbitrator -General – [See
Labour Law – Topic 7041
].
Labour Law – Topic 7038
Industrial relations – Collective agreement -Enforcement – Arbitration – General – Matters not arbitrable – [See
Labour Law – Topic 7041
].
Labour Law – Topic 7041
Industrial relations – Collective agreement -Enforcement – Arbitration – Jurisdiction or powers of arbitrator or board – General – The Regina Chief of Police was about to institute discipline proceedings against Sgt. Shotton – Shotton tendered his resignation – Shotton subsequently attempted to withdraw his resignation, but the Chief would not permit him to do so – The union grieved with respect to the Chief’s refusal to accept Shotton’s withdrawal of his resignation – An arbitrator ruled that she did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute because the grievance concerned the discipline and dismissal of a police officer, a matter which was governed by the procedures in the Police Act and Regulations -The Supreme Court of Canada agreed that the arbitrator did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter – The dispute did not arise, either explicitly or inferentially, from the interpretation, application, administration or violation of the collective agreement – The essential character of the dispute was disciplinary and the legislature intended for such disputes to fall within the ambit of the Police Act and Regulations.
Labour Law – Topic 7371
Industrial relations – Collective agreement -Enforcement – Statutory remedies – General – [See
Labour Law – Topic 7041
].
Police – Topic 4077
Internal organization – Discipline of members – Grievances – [See
Labour Law – Topic 7041
].
Cases Noticed:
St. Anne Nackawic Pulp & Paper Co. v. Canadian Paperworkers Union, Local 219, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 704; 68 N.R. 112; 73 N.B.R.(2d) 236; 184 A.P.R. 236; 28 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 16].
Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321; 125 D.L.R.(4th) 583, appld. [para. 16].
New Brunswick v. O’Leary, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 967; 183 N.R. 229; 163 N.B.R.(2d) 97; 419 A.P.R. 97; 125 D.L.R.(4th) 609, refd to. [para. 16].
Proctor v. Board of Commissioners of Police for the City of Sarnia and Attorney General for the Province of Ontario (1979), 99 D.L.R.(3d) 356 (Ont. C.A.), revd. [1980] 2 S.C.R. 727; 34 N.R. 437, refd to. [para. 31].
Statutes Noticed:
Police Act, 1990, S.S. 1990-91, c. P-15.01, sect. 60, sect. 61, sect. 66, sect. 69(1), sect. 69(4) [para. 19].
Trade Union Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. T-17, sect. 25(1) [para. 19].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Ceyssens, Paul, Legal Aspects of Policing (1994, looseleaf updated July 1999), p. 5-2 [para. 31].
Counsel:
Neil Robertson, for the appellant;
Merrilee Rasmussen, Q.C., for the respondents, the Regina Police Association Inc. and Greg Shotton.
Solicitors of Record:
The City Solicitor’s Office, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the appellant;
Wilson Rasmussen, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the respondents, Regina Police Association Inc. and Greg Shotton.
This appeal was heard on November 12, 1999, before L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following judgment of the court was delivered in both official languages by Bastarache, J., on March 2, 2000.
