SEIU-West Appellant (Applicant) v. Heartland Regional Health Authority, 2017 SKCA 84

Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan Docket: CACV3071 Citation: SEIU-West v Heartland Regional HealthAuthority, 2017 SKCA 84Date: 2017-10-03Between:SEIU-WestAppellant(Applicant)AndHeartland Regional Health AuthorityRespondent(Respondent)Before: Ottenbreit, Caldwell and Ryan-Froslie JJ.A.Disposition: Appeal dismissedWritten reasons by: The Honourable Mr. Justice CaldwellIn concurrence: The Honourable Mr. Justice Ottenbreit The Honourable Madam Justice Ryan-FroslieOn Appeal From: 2017 SKQB 103, SaskatoonAppeal Heard: September 21, 2017Counsel: Drew S. Plaxton, Q.C. for the Appellant Jolene M.

Horejda for the Respondent Caldwell J.A. [1] SEIU-West seeks an order setting aside the judgment and order of a Chambers judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench (2017SKQB 103) sitting in judicial review of the arbitration decision in Service Employees International Union-West v Heartland RegionalHealth Authority, , Saskatchewan Labour Arbitration Awards (Hood, Q.C.) [Arbitration Decision]), which haddismissed 11 grievances against Heartland Regional Health Authority. SEIU-West also asks this Court to quash or set aside theArbitration Decision. [2] In clear terms in Dr.

Q v College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, 2003 SCC 19, [2003] 1 SCR 226,McLachlin C.J. set out the appellate role in judicial review cases such as this: [43] … The role of the Court of Appeal was to determine whether the reviewing judge had chosen and applied the correct standard ofreview, and in the event she had not, to assess the administrative body’s decision in light of the correct standard of review,reasonableness. At this stage in the analysis, the Court of Appeal is dealing with appellate review of a subordinate court, not judicialreview of an administrative decision.

As such, the normal rules of appellate review of lower courts as articulated in Housen, supra, apply.The question of the right standard to select and apply is one of law and, therefore, must be answered correctly by a reviewing judge.

TheCourt of Appeal erred by affording deference where none was due. [3] Where the reviewing judge has chosen the correct standards of review, the role of the appellate court is to ensure thereviewing judge has correctly applied those standards of review: Westfair Foods Ltd. v United Food and Commercial Workers, Local1400, 2006 SKCA 8 at paras 12–14, 263 DLR (4th) 397; Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 59 v Saskatoon (City), 2014SKCA 14 at para 22, 433 Sask R 134. [4] In this appeal, the parties agreed that the Chambers judge had correctly identified correctness as the standard of reviewapplicable to the questions of procedural fairness raised by SEIU-West and reasonableness as the standard applicable to the Chambersjudge’s review of the Arbitration Decision itself.

We have considered this first issue and we accept that the parties’ agreement in thisrespect is appropriate. What the parties disagree on is whether the Chambers judge correctly applied those standards of review in thecircumstances. In that regard, we find no reversible error in the decision of the Chambers judge. [5] We have reviewed the Arbitration Decision and the decision of the Chambers judge as well as the appeal book materialsfiled with this Court. Arbitrator Hood laid out his reasons for dismissing the grievances in detail.

The Chambers judge’s reasonsthemselves are a thorough and careful review of the Arbitration Decision in terms of procedural fairness and its reasonableness. [6] Having conducted our review of the Chambers judge’s decision, we find no basis to interfere with his conclusion that SEIU-West had not been denied the opportunity to lead evidence or to make submissions in respect of the applicability of the prior arbitrationaward in SEIU-West and Saskatoon Regional Health Authority (Saskatoon City Hospital and Oliver Lodge) (8 July 2011), SaskatchewanLabour Arbitration Awards (Zuck, Q.C.) [Zuck Decision].

This is evident from the record below (in particular, see appeal book pages688A to 713A). That is, we find the Chambers judge correctly found there had been no breach of procedural fairness in thecircumstances of this arbitration. [7] We also find the Chambers judge correctly applied the standard of reasonableness in his review of the Arbitration Decisionitself. Arbitrator Hood’s comprehensive decision coherently explains and supports his dismissal of the grievances that were before him.His reasoning is compelling and defensible on the facts and law, as is evident from the Chambers judge’s analysis of it.

In appellateterms, we find the Chambers judge correctly applied the standard of reasonableness in his analysis of the Arbitration Decision andcorrectly concluded that it is entitled to deference under that standard. [8] However, in light of the arguments SEIU-West made before us, we observe the Chambers judge understood that Arbitrator

Hood’s disagreement with the Zuck Decision “does not constitute ‘overturning’” that decision and that the two arbitrators simply differed in their

interpretation of paragraph 4 of Letter of Understanding No. 11 on the basis of the specific facts that had been before each of them. [ 9 ] In sum, in accordance with our limited appellate role in matters of judicial review, we conclude the Chambers judge correctly identified and applied the appropriate standards of review to the questions raised before him and, having done so, there is no room for appellate intervention in this matter. [ 10 ] The appeal is dismissed with costs to Heartland in the usual manner. “Caldwell J.A.” Caldwell J.A. I concur. “Ottenbreit J.A.” Ottenbreit J.A. I concur. “Caldwell J.A.” for Ryan-Froslie J.A., per authorisation