Publication
Government Investigations in Singapore 2025
We have contributed the Singapore chapter of Getting the Deal Through, Government Investigations 2025.
Author:
Canada | Publication | November 8, 2021
In Northern Regional Health Authority v. Horrocks (Horrocks),1 the majority of the SCC found that a human rights adjudicator did not have jurisdiction to preside over a human rights complaint brought by a unionized worker in Manitoba. In doing so, the SCC affirmed the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitrators to decide disputes arising from the collective agreement under provincial labour legislation, in the absence of clear legislative intent to grant concurrent jurisdiction to another decision-making body.
Ms. Horrocks was a unionized healthcare worker, employed by the Northern Regional Health Authority (NRHA). She was subject to a collective agreement, which provided that discrimination on the basis of “mental or physical disability” was forbidden. After being suspended for attending work while under the influence of alcohol, Ms. Horrocks disclosed her alcohol dependency to the NRHA. The NRHA terminated Ms. Horrocks’ employment upon her refusal to enter into an agreement requiring her to abstain from alcohol and obtain addiction treatment. Ms. Horrocks’ union grieved her termination. This resulted in her reinstatement under certain conditions that, once again, included abstinence and treatment. The NRHA subsequently terminated Ms. Horrocks’ employment due to her alleged violation of these terms.
Instead of filing a grievance under the collective agreement regarding her second termination, Ms. Horrocks brought a complaint to the Manitoba Human Rights Commission (the Commission) under Manitoba’s Human Rights Code (the Code), alleging she had been discriminated against on the basis of disability in the form of addiction.
The NRHA contested the jurisdiction of the human rights adjudicator, taking the position that a labour arbitrator has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising under the collective agreement. Despite this claim, the chief adjudicator determined she had jurisdiction and found that the NRHA had discriminated against Ms. Horrocks.
Upon judicial review, the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench set aside the chief adjudicator’s decision, which was then overturned by the Manitoba Court of Appeal. At the SCC, Justice Brown, writing on behalf of the majority, allowed the NRHA’s appeal and set aside the Manitoba Court of Appeal’s decision. According to the majority, SCC precedent has consistently affirmed labour arbitrators’ exclusive jurisdiction where labour relations statutes include a provision for the final settlement of disputes under the collective agreement.
Referencing specific SCC jurisprudence, including Weber v. Ontario Hydro,2 Justice Brown held that a two-step analysis is required when resolving a jurisdictional conflict between a labour arbitrator and a statutory tribunal:
Applying this analysis to the case at hand, at the first step, the majority examined Manitoba’s Labour Relations Act (the Act) and the Code. The Act contains a mandatory dispute resolution clause, which indicates legislative intent to confer exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising under the collective agreement to a labour arbitrator under the collective agreement. Meanwhile, the Code does not clearly displace this exclusive jurisdiction conferred by the Act. Thus, the Code falls short of granting concurrent jurisdiction over human rights disputes arising under the collective agreement.
Moving to the second step, Justice Brown characterized the essential character of the dispute as one arising from the interpretation, application or violation of the collective agreement between Ms. Horrocks’ union and the NRHA. Specifically, Ms. Horrocks’ complaint concerned NRHA’s failure to exercise its management rights in accordance with the limits prescribed by the collective agreement and legislation, including the Code. While Ms. Horrocks had legally characterized her complaint as a human rights violation, the underlying factual context was related to how her employer had exercised its management rights under the collective agreement.
Citing Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd. v Ontario (Human Rights Commission) (2001) (also known as Naraine), an Ontario Court of Appeal decision, Justice Brown acknowledged that certain appellate courts have held that, due to the paramount status of human rights legislation, clear language is necessary to displace a human rights tribunal’s jurisdiction. While declining to comment on the correctness of such an approach, Justice Brown emphasized that the inclusion of a mandatory dispute resolution clause within a labour relations statute clearly indicates the legislature’s intent to override the application of human rights legislation.
In Horrocks, the majority of the SCC clearly recognized the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitrators over human rights disputes which, in their essential character, arise from the interpretation, application or violation of a collective agreement in Manitoba. The decision also calls into question the continued application of Naraine and other appellate decisions, which have previously acknowledged the concurrent jurisdiction of human rights adjudicators in other provinces across Canada.
It remains to be seen whether provincial courts outside Manitoba will embrace the approach to arbitral exclusivity put forward in Horrocks or distinguish this precedent based on differences found in provincial human rights statutes. As indicated in dissent by Justice Karakatsanis, in comparison to the Manitoba Code, human rights statutes in Ontario, British Columbia and the federal jurisdiction include more explicit clauses contemplating the deferral of an application to another proceeding.
Accordingly, while not explicit, the statutory schemes in these provinces may reveal the legislatures’ intent to grant human rights adjudicators concurrent jurisdiction in matters that could also be subject to the grievance process. Given the significance of the issues at play, the implications of this decision are sure to become apparent in the near future.
Publication
We have contributed the Singapore chapter of Getting the Deal Through, Government Investigations 2025.
Publication
The private credit market and direct lending have grown and diversified immensely in the past decade, offering alternative sources and terms of debt compared to those historically provided by the syndicated leveraged loan and public issuance markets. Consequently, they are fast becoming pivotal components in the capital ecosystem, so much so that the Bank of England consider that the private credit market is currently responsible for approximately $1.8 trillion of debt issuance, which is four times its size in 2015. This growth has been particularly pronounced in Europe and the US but there has also been significant activity in Asia.
Publication
The EU’s Artificial Intelligence Regulation, commonly referred to as the AI Act, is expected to come into force during the summer of 2024 (the AI Act). The AI Act will be the first comprehensive legal framework for the use and development of artificial intelligence (AI), and is intended to ensure that AI systems developed and used in the EU are safe, transparent, traceable, non-discriminatory and environmentally friendly.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023