Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff’s wrongful dismissal claim was governed by a collective agreement and thus fell outside the court’s jurisdiction.

• Arbitration had already resolved the employment dispute, and the civil claim constituted a collateral attack on that decision.

• Alleged union misconduct in grievance handling must be addressed by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, not the court.

• Claims of breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, and other torts were unsupported by material facts and improperly pleaded.

• Judicial review was time-barred and procedurally unavailable to the plaintiff as a non-party to the arbitration.

• Court found the entire claim legally untenable and struck it without leave to amend.

Background and employment termination

Angèle Gaudette was employed as an educational assistant with CSCNO and was also a union member through the OSSTF and its local affiliate. Her employment was governed by a collective agreement. She was dismissed on May 11, 2018, after CSCNO learned she had worked elsewhere while on paid sick leave. The union filed a grievance contesting the termination. After an 11-day arbitration, the arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding just cause for dismissal based on her conduct and failure to cooperate with CSCNO’s investigation.

Plaintiff’s civil court action

Following the unsuccessful arbitration, Gaudette initiated a lengthy civil proceeding against CSCNO, the OSSTF, their officers and legal counsel, and several employees. Her 160-page claim challenged the arbitration result, alleged systemic misconduct before and during the arbitration, and sought various relief including reinstatement, damages, and declarations against the defendants.

Arguments raised on the motion to strike

The defendants moved to strike the claim in its entirety. They argued the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over employment matters arising from a collective agreement and that the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) had exclusive jurisdiction over union representation complaints. They also contended that the claim was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. Further, they noted that any attempt to amend the pleadings would be futile.

Jurisdictional limitations and exclusive remedies

The court reviewed key precedents, particularly Weber v. Ontario Hydro, and held that where disputes arise under a collective agreement, they fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator. It also noted that allegations of unfair union representation must be brought to the OLRB under sections 74 and 114 of the Ontario Labour Relations Act. Claims against CSCNO and OSSTF employees for their roles in handling the grievance process were likewise subject to the same jurisdictional bar.

Failure to plead viable civil causes of action

The court examined additional allegations by the plaintiff, including breach of fiduciary duties, criminal conduct, and various torts such as conspiracy and defamation. It found these claims lacked factual specificity and were unsupported by the pleadings. The court emphasized that civil proceedings are not the proper forum for determining criminal liability or enforcing statutory duties like fair representation.

Request for judicial review and procedural bars

Gaudette also sought to judicially review the arbitration decision. However, the court ruled this relief was unavailable because she was not a party to the arbitration, the OSSTF had chosen not to pursue judicial review, and the statutory time limit of 30 days had expired over a year earlier. The court held that the union’s decision not to seek review could only be challenged through the OLRB.

Conclusion and dismissal

In conclusion, the court found that the entirety of the plaintiff’s claim was based on issues falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of either a labour arbitrator or the Labour Board. It ruled that no aspect of the claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action and that no amendment could cure these fundamental defects. The claim was struck in its entirety, and leave to amend was denied. The court invited parties to make brief written submissions on costs if they could not agree.