Docket: CACV2215 United Food v. Commercial Workers, Local 1400, 2012 SKCA 66

THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2012 SKCA 66 Date: 20120612 Between: Docket: CACV2215 United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1400 (Applicant) Appellant - and - The Real Canadian Superstores, The Real Canadian Wholesale Clubs, all Extra Foods Stores, and Westfair Foods Ltd., all being divisions of Loblaws Inc. (Respondent) Respondent - and - A Board of Arbitration chaired by Randy P. Kachur, Q.C. (Respondent) Respondent Coram: Jackson, Ottenbreit and Herauf JJ.A. Counsel:

Drew Plaxton for the appellant Larry Seiferling, Q.C., for the respondent Appeal: From: 2011 SKQB 466 Heard: June 12, 2012 Disposition: Dismissed (orally) Written Reasons: June 27, 2012 By: The Honourable Mr. Justice Herauf In Concurrence: The Honourable Madam Justice Jackson The Honourable Mr. Justice Ottenbreit Herauf J.A. [ 1 ] This is an appeal from a decision of Mills J. wherein he dismissed an application to set aside the majority decision of the Board of Arbitration. See 2011 SKQB 466 .

The appeal was dismissed from the bench orally. [ 2 ] The Board of Arbitration applied the doctrine of rectification to the Collective Bargaining Agreement (the “CBA”) in coming to its decision. The appellant Union submits that this attracts a standard of correctness. We disagree. The Supreme Court of Canada in Nor- Man Regional Health Authority Inc. v. Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals , 2011 SCC 59 , [2011] 3 S.C.R. 616 held that the reasonableness standard of review applies where equitable doctrines such as rectification are applied by administrative tribunals. See paras. 34-45.

There is no basis to depart from the application of that standard of review in this case. [ 3 ] The appellant advances two principal grounds of appeal relating to the application of the doctrine of rectification and the reasonableness of the majority’s

interpretation of the rectified CBA. Each ground will be dealt with in turn. [ 4 ] Contrary to the appellant’s submission we find, as did the Chambers judge, that the Arbitration Board reasonably applied the framework of principle established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Performance Industries Ltd. v. Sylvan Lake Golf & Tennis Club Ltd. , 2002 SCC 19 , [2002] 1 S.C.R. 678 and this Court in Saskatoon Credit Union Ltd. v. United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1400 , 2009 SKCA 87 , [2010] 2 W.W.R. 105 to the specific facts of the case.

We find no error in this analysis and would not give effect to this ground of appeal. [ 5 ] The Arbitration Board carefully considered and reasonably interpreted the rectified CBA based upon a reading of Appendix “A” as a whole to answer the question before it which was identified as the second issue at page 17 of the Award. The Arbitration Board also looked at the plain meaning of the term “progression” in the context of the whole rectified “Appendix A - Wage Schedule”. In doing so, as the Chambers judge found, the Arbitration Board came to a reasonable

interpretation of the provisions which the language in the rectified provisions could easily bear. In the result, we would not give effect to this ground of appeal. [ 6 ] For these reasons the appeal was dismissed. As counsel advised the Court that they have an agreement as to costs, we make no order as to costs.