2013 NBCA 43, 2013 NBCA 43

COURT OF APPEAL OF COUR D’APPEL DU NEW BRUNSWICK NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK 36-13-CA KEITH MUNN (Respondent) APPELLANT KEITH MUNN (Intimé) APPELANT - and - - et - THE PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK and KRISTIAN MOORE and LUCILLE COLLETTE (Applicants) RESPONDENTS LA PROVINCE DU NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK, KRISTIAN MOORE et LUCILLE COLLETTE (Requérants) INTIMÉS Munn v. Province of New Brunswick, Moore and Collette, 2013 NBCA 43 Munn c.

Province du Nouveau-Brunswick, Moore et Collette, 2013 NBCA 43 CORAM: The Honourable Justice Robertson The Honourable Justice Richard The Honourable Justice Bell CORAM : L’honorable juge Robertson L’honorable juge Richard L’honorable juge Bell Appeal from a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench: February 5, 2013 Appel d’une décision de la Cour du Banc de la Reine : Le 5 février 2013 History of Case: Historique de la cause : Decision under appeal: 2013 NBQB 51 Décision frappée d’appel : 2013 NBBR 51 Preliminary or incidental proceedings: N/A Procédures préliminaires ou accessoires : s.o.

Appeal heard: June 19, 2013 Appel entendu : Le 19 juin 2013 Judgment rendered: July 4, 2013 Jugement rendu : Le 4 juillet 2013

Counsel at hearing: Keith Leroy Munn appeared in person For the respondent: Keith Mullin Avocats à l’audience : Keith Leroy Munn a comparu en personne Pour les intimés : Keith Mullin THE COURT The appeal is dismissed with costs. LA COUR L’appel est rejeté avec dépens. The following is the judgment delivered by THE COURT [ 1 ] Keith Munn appeals a decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench rendered on February 5, 2013, reported at 2013 NBQB 51 , 400 N.B.R. (2d) 184. With that decision, the application judge applied Rule 23.01(2)(

a) of the Rules of Court and the jurisprudence referred to in Smith v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) , 2007 NBCA 58 , 316 N.B.R. (2d) 180, at para. 14 . In brief she held that the Court of Queen’s Bench lacks the jurisdiction to entertain Mr. Munn’s action. The application judge reached this conclusion because the essential character of Mr. Munn’s dispute concerns his employment relationship, for which there was an alternative dispute resolution scheme prescribed by law and a collective agreement. [ 2 ] While Mr.

Munn raises ten grounds of appeal, all ten simply challenge the application judge’s ultimate conclusion that Mr. Munn should have proceeded with the available grievance process to address his work-related dispute, instead of turning to the courts. In our opinion, the application judge did not err in concluding as she did. [ 3 ] For these reasons, Mr. Munn’s appeal is dismissed. The respondents are entitled to one set of costs, which we fix at $1,500.