Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Labour relations – Collective agreements – Grievance - Estoppel - Whether the doctrine of estoppel must be defined uniformly by all adjudicators, and strictly accord with uniform definition established by the courts or whether labour arbitrators are entitled to develop their own jurisprudence - Whether the equitable doctrine of estoppel requires that actual knowledge of certain facts and actual intent to affect legal relations exist, or whether constructive knowledge and intention may be implied.

The employer, Nor-Man Regional Health Authority Inc. (“Nor-Man”) and the union were parties to a collective agreement that contained several provisions on casual employees and annual vacations. In July 2008, an employee submitted a grievance, alleging that she had been denied certain vacation benefits, in violation of the collective agreement. She had worked for Nor-Man both on a casual and on a part-time indefinite term basis. According to Article 1104 of the agreement, paid vacation entitlement was based on length of employment and Article 1105 indicated that an employee was entitled to an extra week of paid vacation on the 20th anniversary of her employment. The grievor claimed that the relevant date for calculating her vacation entitlement was July 12, 1988, when she first became employed as a casual nurse’s aide. The employer said it was May 30, 1999, when she became employed in a part-time indefinite term position, and when she started to accrue seniority under the agreement.

Nor-Man had consistently interpreted the agreement on the basis that credit for casual time was excluded, since casual employees received vacation pay with each cheque. Further, the union had never questioned the practice. Seniority reports were regularly produced by Nor-Man, were regularly given to the union and were posted in the workplace. The grievor’s seniority report showed her seniority date as May 30, 1999, and her employment date as July 12, 1988. The union’s position was that all casual time should be counted.