The court does not have the jurisdiction to hear a professor’s claims against the University based on the torts of non-sexual common law harassment, intimidation, and unlawful interference with economic interests. In the result, the action was dismissed. The essential nature of the dispute related to the working conditions of employees and the failure of the University to take adequate measures to ensure a safe and harassment free working environment. The appropriate forum for the resolution of the dispute was the grievance and arbitration procedure set out in the collective bargaining agreement.

27. August 2002 0
Administrative law – Labour law – Arbitration – Collective agreements – Working conditions – Jurisdiction of court – Universities – Jurisdiction Hemmings v. University of Saskatchewan, [2002] S.J. No. 457, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, July 30, 2002, Vancise, Sherstobitoff and Jackson JJ.A. A tenured professor commenced an action against the University for intimidation, intentional infliction of harm, ...

The Appellant’s, a retired teacher, allegations of defamation, negligence, malice and arbitrary treatment against other employees of the school district were dismissed on the grounds that the Court did not have jurisdiction to deal with them. The Court does not have jurisdiction to hear disputes whose “essential character” arises from the interpretation, application, administration, or violation of a collective agreement”. In such cases, the dispute must be dealt with by the dispute resolution process provided in the collective agreement and labour relations statutes and not by litigation in the Courts.

26. March 2002 0
Administrative law – Labour law – Collective agreements – Jurisdiction of court – Defamation – Qualified privilege Haight-Smith v. Neden, [2002] B.C.J. No. 375, British Columbia Court of Appeal, February 27, 2002, Esson, Ryan and Levine JJ.A. If the “essential character” of the dispute arises from the interpretation, application, administration or violation of the collective ...