The issue of whether a court will assume jurisdiction over a claim brought by a unionized employee against his or her employer (and sometimes third parties) continues to come up from time to time.
Most recently in Paonessa v. Lifemark Health Management Inc. where a former employee sued his employer, various individuals and a company that had been retained by the employer to perform a Functional Abilities Evaluation to decide whether the plaintiff was physically capable of returning to work.
The employment relationship was subject to a collective agreement. The employer and other defendants brought a motion strike the claim, arguing that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the action. The issue to be decided was whether The issue is whether the dispute in the lawsuit was one arising under the collective agreement. If so, according to the principles in Weber v. Ontario Hydro, the court had no jurisdiction and the action would be dismissed.
The court observed that:
"There are situations in which the court has jurisdiction notwithstanding the existence of a collective agreement. For example, actions against insurance benefit providers have been allowed to proceed on the basis that the collective agreement requires the employer to pay the premiums, but not to administer the benefits: London Life Insurance Co. v. Dubreuil Brothers Employees Assn., [2000] O.J. No. 2609 (CA). On the other hand, where the collective agreement provides for arbitration of the administration of such benefits, the court will not have jurisdiction: Campos v. Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada, 2009 CanLII 43186 (ON SC), 2009 CanLII 43186 (ONSC, Lax J.). An action for malicious prosecution has been allowed to proceed when an employer caused criminal charges to be laid against an employee: Piko v. Hudson's Bay Co., [1998] O.J. No. 4714 (CA)."
The court concluded that the dispute arose "squarely from the collective agreement" and that the "plaintiff has an adequate remedy in the arbitration process".
The action was dismissed.
