The Ontario Court of Appeal considered a number of issues, including its own jurisdiction, in a whistleblower case. In this case, a federal civil servant whose employment was "governed by a comprehensive scheme
that includes statutes, regulations, collective agreements and other
governmental directives" advanced tort claims against his supervisors, the federal government in the Ontario Superior Court.
The respondent brought a motion to strike out the claim on the basis that the employee was not a "whistleblower" and, if he was, that the "applicable statutory provisions deprive the Superior Court of jurisdiction to entertain his claim." The claim was struck on the motion and the judge held that "the grievance procedures set out in the applicable statutes and collective agreements provided the only forum in which the appellant could seek relief for the mistreatment he allegedly suffered at the hands of his supervisors and employer." The employee appealed and his appeal was dismissed.
After reviewing the applicable statutes and the collective agreements, the Court concluded that "the allegations advanced by the appellant in support of his claims in the Superior Court were all matters that he could have grieved under the grievance procedures set out in the statutes and the collective agreements." In the circumstances, and having regard to, for example, the applicable legislation, the Court reasoned that it's jurisdiction to entertain the claim had been "ousted" and that the grievance procedure operates “in lieu of any right of action”. The Court also held that there was no "whistleblower" exemption from this.
While the case may have limited application give the basis on which the court declined jurisdiction, it is nonetheless very important in federal workplaces subject to the legislation.
