Lack of Jurisdiction
The Superior Court followed prior decisions in confirming that the putative class members were bound by their respective collective bargaining agreements, which provided for binding arbitration, as codified under the Police Services Act. For a more detailed analysis of the lower Court’s decision, please see our previous case alert.
The Court of Appeal agreed that, “in the policing context … the Superior Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the proposed class action”. The Court rejected the appellants’ submissions that the collective agreements did not provide an adequate remedy for class members. The Court noted that the collective agreements did permit group complaints or grievances. The Court also rejected the submission that there were practical barriers to filing a complaint with the Association because of a discriminatory environment. The Court found a “fatal flaw” in this argument in that the putative class members had not attempted to avail themselves of the mandatory arbitration process or led any evidence to demonstrate that it was practically unavailable.
Despite finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the proposed class action, the Superior Court (at the urging of counsel for the plaintiff) went through the exercise of applying the certification criteria, ultimately finding that the pleading did not disclose a cause of action. The Court of Appeal refused to mirror such an exercise, finding it unnecessary to address the dismissal of the certification motion.
The Court of Appeal’s ruling strengthens the existing body of case law, holding that courts are without jurisdiction to consider proposed class actions when the allegations fall within a collective agreement and legislative scheme providing for binding arbitration.