DATE: 20000713
DOCKET: C31212
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
CARTHY, GOUDGE AND O'CONNOR JJ.A.
BETWEEN: )
) Paul J.J. Cavalluzzo
I.W.A.-CANADA, LOCAL 2693 ) for the appellant
)
Applicant )
(Appellant) )
)
and ) I.H. Fraser
) for the respondent
LONGLAC WOOD INDUSTRIES INC. )
)
Respondent )
(Respondent in )
Appeal) )
) Heard: December 20 and
) 21, 1999
On appeal from the judgment of the Divisional Court (O’Leary,
Campbell and Salhany JJ.) dated September 18, 1998.
GOUDGE J.A.:
[1] This is an appeal by the Union, I.W.A.-Canada, Local 2693
from the decision of the Divisional Court dismissing an
application to quash the arbitration award between the union and
respondent employer. It was heard together with the appeal in
London Life Insurance Company v. Dubreuil Brothers Employees
Association, 2000 OCA C31391 (“London Life”) and raises
essentially the same issue. For the reasons given in London
Life, supra, I would reach the same conclusion as I did there.
In the result I would dismiss the appeal.
[2] The issue presented to the arbitrator was the arbitrability
of the employee’s claim for weekly indemnity payments under the
insurance policy, which the collective agreement required the
employer to maintain. The arbitrator interpreted the collective
agreement to oblige the employer to do no more than maintain and
pay for the cost of the insurance policy. He therefore concluded
that the employee’s claim for benefits under the policy was
inarbitrable and indicated that the employee was required to sue
the insurer for that relief.
[3] The Divisional Court held that it was open to the arbitrator
to interpret the collective agreement as he did and dismissed the
application for judicial review.
[4] On appeal the appellant argued that in light of the case law
discussed in London Life and particularly Pilon v. International
Minerals and Chemical Corp. (1996), 31 O.R. (3d) 210 (C.A.),
disputes between an employee and an insurer over benefits payable
under an insurance policy that is required by a collective
agreement are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitrator
even where the employer has fully complied with the collective
agreement. For the reasons given in London Life I disagree. In
this case the employee’s claim against the insurer for benefits
under the policy does not fall within the arbitrator’s exclusive
jurisdiction.
[5] The arbitrator’s disposition of the grievance in this case
depended upon his interpretation of the collective agreement.
That decision is properly accorded curial deference, on the
standard of patent unreasonableness. Here it was not patently
unreasonable for the arbitrator to interpret the collective
agreement as he did. There was no obligation on the employer
beyond providing and paying for the insurance plan. The union
clearly failed to persuade the arbitrator that the employer had
fallen short of its obligation.
[6] Since the claim against the insurer was beyond the
arbitrator’s jurisdiction and the grievance raised no arbitrable
claim against the employer, the arbitrator properly dismissed it.
The Divisional Court was correct in dismissing the application
for judicial review.
[7] I would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs including
those of the motion seeking leave to appeal.
Released: July 13, 2000
“S.T. Goudge J.A.”
“I agree J.J. Carthy J.A.”
“I agree D. O’Connor J.A.” |