Weber v. Ontario Hydro
Encyclopedia
Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada
where the Court held that a labour abitration board was a "court of competent jurisdiction" within the meaning of section 24(1)
of the Charter, and could grant declarations and damages. Consequently, the board has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, and so employees cannot bring suits concerning matters under a collective agreement
to court.
, took a leave of absence due a back injury. Ontario Hydro paid him sick benefits but after a time they became suspicious and hired a private investigator
to spy on Weber. The investigators were able to gain access to Weber's home and found evidence showing that he was abusing the sick benefits.
In August 1989, Weber went to the union who then filed a grievance against Ontario Hydro claiming that the use of the private investigator violated the collective agreement
.
While the arbitration was underway, Weber brought an action in court against Ontario Hydro for the tort
s of trespass, nuisance, deceit, and invasion of privacy, and for a violation of his Charter right to security under section 7 and privacy under section 8.
Ontario Hydro argued that the court could not hear Weber's action because the matter was in the jurisdiction of the arbitrator.
The motions judge struck down the action. He found that the action arose from the collective agreement and so the court did not have jurisdiction, moreover, it was a private dispute and so the Charter did not apply. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, except held that the Charter claim was valid.
The question before the Court was whether the labour arbitrator had jurisdiction to grant remedies for the Weber's claims.
McLachlin looked at the wording of the Ontario Labour Relations Act which gave the arbitrator exclusive authority to adjudicate over "all differences between the parties arising from the interpretation, application, administration or alleged violation of the agreement". She held that this meant that the abritrator had jurisdiction over the subject matter which meant that the abitrator necessarily had authority over remedies as well. Consequently, the abitrator was a "court of competent jurisdiction" and had authority over Weber's claims.
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...
where the Court held that a labour abitration board was a "court of competent jurisdiction" within the meaning of section 24(1)
Section Twenty-four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Twenty-four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for remedies available to those whose Charter rights are shown to be violated...
of the Charter, and could grant declarations and damages. Consequently, the board has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, and so employees cannot bring suits concerning matters under a collective agreement
Collective agreement
A collective agreement or collective bargaining agreement is an agreement between employers and employees which regulates the terms and conditions of employees in their workplace, their duties and the duties of the employer...
to court.
Background
Murray Weber, an employee of Ontario HydroOntario Hydro
Ontario Hydro was the official name from 1974 of the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario which was established in 1906 by the provincial Power Commission Act to build transmission lines to supply municipal utilities with electricity generated by private companies already operating at Niagara...
, took a leave of absence due a back injury. Ontario Hydro paid him sick benefits but after a time they became suspicious and hired a private investigator
Private investigator
A private investigator , private detective or inquiry agent, is a person who can be hired by individuals or groups to undertake investigatory law services. Private detectives/investigators often work for attorneys in civil cases. Many work for insurance companies to investigate suspicious claims...
to spy on Weber. The investigators were able to gain access to Weber's home and found evidence showing that he was abusing the sick benefits.
In August 1989, Weber went to the union who then filed a grievance against Ontario Hydro claiming that the use of the private investigator violated the collective agreement
Collective agreement
A collective agreement or collective bargaining agreement is an agreement between employers and employees which regulates the terms and conditions of employees in their workplace, their duties and the duties of the employer...
.
While the arbitration was underway, Weber brought an action in court against Ontario Hydro for the tort
Tort
A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a wrong that involves a breach of a civil duty owed to someone else. It is differentiated from a crime, which involves a breach of a duty owed to society in general...
s of trespass, nuisance, deceit, and invasion of privacy, and for a violation of his Charter right to security under section 7 and privacy under section 8.
Ontario Hydro argued that the court could not hear Weber's action because the matter was in the jurisdiction of the arbitrator.
The motions judge struck down the action. He found that the action arose from the collective agreement and so the court did not have jurisdiction, moreover, it was a private dispute and so the Charter did not apply. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, except held that the Charter claim was valid.
The question before the Court was whether the labour arbitrator had jurisdiction to grant remedies for the Weber's claims.
Reasons of the court
Justice McLachlin, writing for the majority, held that the labour abritrartor had jurisdiction to grant the remedies and consequently, Weber could not bring an action in court.McLachlin looked at the wording of the Ontario Labour Relations Act which gave the arbitrator exclusive authority to adjudicate over "all differences between the parties arising from the interpretation, application, administration or alleged violation of the agreement". She held that this meant that the abritrator had jurisdiction over the subject matter which meant that the abitrator necessarily had authority over remedies as well. Consequently, the abitrator was a "court of competent jurisdiction" and had authority over Weber's claims.