Morissette v. Attorney General of Canada

Morissette v. Attorney General of Canada

The essential character of the appellant's dispute is workplace discrimination and harassment governed by the collective agreement and PSSRA and/or by the CHRA; because those statutory and contractual mechanisms provide available and appropriate remedies, the appellant was precluded from pursuing the matter in court and the motion judge rightly struck the cause of action under Rule 21.01(3)(a).

Citation
C40998
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Mary Morissette; Defendant (respondent): Attorney General of Canada; Defendant (respondent): Michael Chase; Defendant (respondent): Deborah Chase; Defendant (respondent): Robert Brown; Defendant (respondent): Alan Stevenson; Defendant (respondent): Wayne Scissons; Defendant (respondent): Ross Toller
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Superior Court Judgment Striking Action Under Rule 21.01(3)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Workplace Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, Grievance Arbitration, Exclusive Jurisdiction of Arbitration, Canadian Human Rights Act, Public Service Staff Relations Act, Defamation, Rule 21.01(3)(a) Strike Out
Source Language
English
Employment Law Labour Law Human Rights Tort Law Civil Procedure Workplace Discrimination Sexual Harassment Grievance Arbitration +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Morissette

Plaintiff (appellant)

Attorney General of Canada

Defendant (respondent)

Michael Chase

Defendant (respondent)

Deborah Chase

Defendant (respondent)

Robert Brown

Defendant (respondent)

Alan Stevenson

Defendant (respondent)

Wayne Scissons

Defendant (respondent)

Ross Toller

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Superior Court Judgment Striking Action Under Rule 21.01(3)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the PSSRA and collective agreement/grievance procedure preclude court action
  2. 2 Whether the CHRA provides an alternative administrative forum that precludes litigation
  3. 3 Whether an alleged workplace defamation is an independent tort permitting court action despite grievance/arbitration exclusivity

Ratio Decidendi

The essential character of the appellant's dispute is workplace discrimination and harassment governed by the collective agreement and PSSRA and/or by the CHRA; because those statutory and contractual mechanisms provide available and appropriate remedies, the appellant was precluded from pursuing the matter in court and the motion judge rightly struck the cause of action under Rule 21.01(3)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Motion judge's order striking out the appellant's cause of action under Rule 21.01(3)(a) upheld
  • Appeal dismissed