IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA
BETWEEN:
2201336 NOVA SCOTIA LIMITED, doing business under the name,
Courtesy Chrysler
APPLICANT
- and -
THE LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD (Nova Scotia) and the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION of MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE WORKERS, Local Lodge 1763
RESPONDENTS
Justice Robert W. Wright Halifax, Nova Scotia File No. S.H. No. 174265
LIBRARY HEADING
Cite as: 2201336 Nova Scotia Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Labour Relations Board), 2002 NSSC 132
HEARD: Before the Honourable Justice Robert W. Wright in Chambers at Halifax, Nova Scotia on December 4, 2001.
ORAL DECISION: December 5, 2001
WRITTEN RELEASE
OF DECISION: May 14, 2002
SUBJECT: Compellability of members of the Nova Scotia Labour Relations Board to be examined on discovery in a judicial review proceeding - principle of statutory immunity.
SUMMARY: After filing an application for judicial review of an adverse decision by the Labour Relations Board, the employer served a number of Notices of Examination, including those served on the Vice-Chair of the Board (who had presided at the hearing) and both the Chair and a second Vice-Chair of the Board (who were not involved in the hearing). The purpose of the intended discovery examinations was to obtain evidence in support of one of the grounds of judicial review, namely, that a reasonable apprehension of bias had been created because the Vice-Chair of the Board also has acted as a consensual arbitrator in labour disputes involving other trade unions represented by the same law firm as was appearing for the Union in the present case. The basis of the alleged apprehension was that the Board members might appear to show favouritism to the union clients of the law firm in Board matters so as to attract future appointments as a consensual arbitrator of labour disputes.
Both the Union and the Labour Relations Board thereupon filed an application for an order striking out the Notices of Examination which had been served.
ISSUE: Are the Chair and Vice-Chairs of the Board compellable witnesses in the judicial review proceeding to be examined with respect to their outside activities as consensual arbitrators of labour disputes?
HELD: The nature of the discovery evidence sought by the employer would inevitably invade the protection of statutory immunity to which the Board members are entitled and encroach upon their independence as administrative decision makers. Moreover, the specific details of the outside arbitration practices of the three Board members, beyond that which is already in evidence or conceded by counsel for the Union, would be unnecessary for the determination of the ultimate issue at the judicial review hearing itself of whether or not a reasonable apprehension of bias existed.
THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION. QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THE COVER SHEET.