Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Labour relations – Civil liability – Duty to advise – Union’s duty of fair representation – Assessment of damages – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that Superior Court had jurisdiction to hear action against union in civil liability – Whether it erred on question of scope of duty of fair representation – Whether it erred by applying concept of “loss of chance” as criterion in assessing damages.

The Respondent, Mr. Dupuis, had worked for Polyone Canada Inc. for 22 years when he was suspended because of an investigation and then dismissed a week later. His union (the Applicant, of which Mr. Caza is a representative) then filed a grievance on his behalf. Although the collective agreement provides for a three-stage process, the union referred the grievance to arbitration, skipping the second stage. Shortly after that, the employer’s representative informed the union that it would object to the grievance being heard, citing a procedural defect. The union, which believed that the employer’s objection could be overcome at arbitration, advised Mr. Dupuis to pursue his grievance despite the objection. The grievance was heard nearly a year later. The adjudicator dismissed it on the basis of a procedural defect. Mr. Dupuis, on the advice of his union, then turned to the Commission des relations du travail to avail himself of ss. 47.2 and 47.3 of the Labour Code, R.S.Q., c. C-27. Under those sections, an employee who has been dismissed and who believes that his certified association has shown serious negligence in respect of himself has six months to file a complaint and apply to the Commission for an order directing that his claim be referred to arbitration. The complaint was dismissed because the time had expired.

Mr. Dupuis then filed a motion to institute proceedings against the Applicants. He claimed damages as compensation for lost wages and other damage resulting from the dismissal, which he contended was unlawful. He alleged that the Applicants had shown serious negligence and had breached their duty of representation, and he claimed that these breaches were the reason the grievance and the complaint under s. 47.3 had been dismissed. The Superior Court dismissed the action on the basis of a want of jurisdiction ratione materiae. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. In its opinion, a complaint under s. 47.3 is against the employer, not the union, and an employee who has lost his or her other remedies because of fault on the part of the union may accordingly bring an action in civil liability against the union in the Superior Court. The Court of Appeal held that in this case, the fault committed by the Applicants had caused Mr. Dupuis to lose the chance of having his grievance allowed by the arbitrator, and it ordered them to pay Mr. Dupuis $193,410 plus interest and additional indemnity.