The Court of King’s Bench of Manitoba has dismissed all claims of negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and defamation brought by a former union executive against the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, affirming the Union’s handling of internal disciplinary proceedings stemming from allegations of misconduct.
The case centred on disciplinary measures the Union initiated against A.L.S., who was at the time employed by Canada Post Corporation as a letter carrier and served as the elected 1st Vice-President of the Union’s Winnipeg Local. In May 2018, the Union relieved A.L.S. of his duties following informal allegations of inappropriate conduct made by fellow union member B.S.
The allegations, which were later formalized, accused A.L.S. of sexual harassment and sexual assault occurring around May 2015. The Union notified A.L.S. of these allegations and imposed certain restrictions, including not sending him to union events and not putting his name forward to facilitate union activities until a ruling was made.
Despite A.L.S.’s requests, the Union did not disclose B.S.’s identity or the details of the allegations during the initial stages. Formal charges were filed under Article 8.02(a), (b), and (f) of the Union’s National Constitution, and A.L.S. was officially relieved of his duties pursuant to Article 8.34(b) and (f).
In September 2019, the Prairie Regional Disciplinary Committee dismissed the charges, citing the Union’s failure to meet its burden of proof, lack of jurisdiction, and contravention of the Union’s Constitution. This decision was upheld on appeal by the National Appeal Board in May 2020.
Subsequently, A.L.S. filed a lawsuit against the Union, alleging negligence in pursuing the charges and handling the complaint, breach of fiduciary duty, and defamation. He claimed damages exceeding $500,000 for general damages, out-of-pocket expenses, and punitive damages.
Court’s analysis
The Court examined whether the Union owed a duty of care to A.L.S. in the context of an internal disciplinary proceeding. Justice Saull concluded that no such duty existed, noting that “the Union’s role as collective bargaining agent has no bearing whatsoever on the internal Union proceeding.” The Court found that the Union’s actions were governed by its Constitution, particularly Article 8, which outlines the procedures for disciplinary hearings.
Even if a duty of care were established, the Court determined that the Union did not breach the standard of care. The Union had followed its constitutional procedures, provided A.L.S. with a fair hearing, and acted reasonably in the circumstances. The Court noted that “the system worked for the benefit of A.L.S. and he was acquitted of the charges, which acquittal was upheld on appeal.”
Regarding the alleged breach of fiduciary duty, the Court found that no fiduciary relationship existed between A.L.S. and the Union in the context of the disciplinary proceedings. Justice Saull stated, “the nature of a disciplinary proceeding is such that a fiduciary duty is quite frankly untenable,” as the Union must act in the best interests of the union as a whole rather than any individual member.
Defamation claim
The defamation claim centred on the content of the charges filed against A.L.S., which included statements about the allegations made by B.S. The Court held that the impugned statements were protected by the defence of justification or truth, as they accurately summarized the allegations. Additionally, the statements were protected by qualified privilege, given that they were made within the context of internal union disciplinary proceedings and communicated only to those with a corresponding duty to receive the information.
“The impugned statements were made in the course of the discharge of the Union’s responsibilities pursuant to Article 8 of the Constitution,” Justice Saull wrote. “Moreover, the statements were only provided to individuals who were fastened with a corresponding ‘duty’ to receive the information.”
The Court also addressed new allegations of defamation raised by A.L.S. concerning the meeting minutes from the National Executive Board meeting where the charges were laid. These allegations were not pleaded initially, and the Court found that even if considered, the defence of justification or truth would apply.
Damages and conclusion
Ultimately, the Court dismissed all claims and awarded costs to the Union. Justice Saull concluded that A.L.S. failed to establish any negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, or actionable defamation on the part of the Union.
For more information, see Sarrasin v. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers, 2024 MBKB 155 (CanLII).
