RvThorton[1]
- 1. Wainwright v. Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd. Procedural History: This case has been brought to a court of appeal within British Columbia. The appellant is looking to have the judgement against their company overturned. Facts: The appellantfeelsasthoughthe original courtdidnothave the jurisdictiontomake judgement inthe case at the time. The appellantwouldliketohave hiscompany’scase heardwithinthe confinesof arbitration withinthe unionof the respondents. Issues: 1. Shouldthiscase be heardwithinprivate arbitration? 2. Didthe appellantsbreachacontract made withthe respondents? 3. Didthe court that heardthe case originallyhave jurisdictionoverthe original issuesathand? Decision: This appeal has been denied Ratio: The contract under which the respondents entered into was made prior to employment therefore it is to be heard within the common law court system. Reasons: 1. No,as the contract made withthe respondentswasmade priortoemploymentitdoesnot fall underthe collective bargainingagreementof the unionandtherefore doesnotqualifyfor arbitration. 2. The case of McGavin ToastmasterLimited v. Ainscough,(1976) 1 S.C.R.,718 wascitedmaking the pointthat a relationshipbetweenemployeesandemployersbeginsatthe hiringstage and not priorto. Anycontracts or agreementsenteredintobetweenemployeesandemployers made priorto official hiringtherefore wouldfallintoacontract outside of the prevue of the collective bargainingagreementof the union. 3. Yes itdidas is citiedin St.AnneNackawicPulp and Paperco.Ltd. V C.P.W.U.Local219, (1986) 1 S.C.R.704 that despite the factthat a collective bargainingagreementanditsrightto arbitration wouldnormallysubvertthe needforacommon law case,it doesnotnegate the fact that itcan be seenwithinthe courtsof commonlaw.