## Facts

- Murray Weber, a unionized employee of Ontario Hydro, took extended sick leave and received benefits under a collective agreement.
- Ontario Hydro suspected Weber was abusing sick-leave benefits and hired private investigators to surveil him.
- Investigators entered Weber’s property and obtained access to his home by misrepresenting their identity.
- Relying on information gathered during surveillance, Ontario Hydro suspended Weber for abusing sick leave.
- Weber’s union filed grievances alleging that the surveillance and suspension violated the collective agreement; the grievances were ultimately settled.
- While the grievance process was ongoing, Weber also sued in court for tort damages (including trespass, nuisance, deceit, and invasion of privacy) and for damages for alleged violations of Canadian Charter rights (ss. 7 and 8) arising from the surveillance.

## Issues

1. Whether the statutory and contractual labour-arbitration regime gave an arbitrator exclusive jurisdiction over Weber’s tort and Charter claims because their essential character arose from the collective agreement.
2. Whether a labour arbitrator is a “court of competent jurisdiction” under Charter s. 24(1) able to grant Charter remedies (including damages) for matters within arbitral jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Weber’s appeal and allowed Ontario Hydro’s cross-appeal.
- The Court held that the civil action was barred because the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of grievance arbitration mandated by labour legislation and the collective agreement.
- The Court held that, for disputes within its mandate, a labour arbitration board is a “court of competent jurisdiction” under Charter s. 24(1) and may award appropriate Charter remedies, including declarations and damages.
- As a result, both the tort claims and the Charter claims were struck for lack of court jurisdiction; the proper forum was labour arbitration.

## Legal Principles

- Where labour legislation requires final and binding arbitration of “all differences” arising from a collective agreement, courts lack jurisdiction over disputes whose essential character arises (expressly or inferentially) from the agreement.
- Jurisdiction turns on the substance of the dispute, not the legal labels pleaded; tort and constitutional framing cannot be used to bypass mandatory arbitration.
- A labour arbitrator may decide Charter issues and grant Charter remedies under s. 24(1) when the Charter claim arises within the arbitrator’s statutory and contractual authority.
- Parallel court proceedings for damages based on facts grounded in a collective-agreement dispute are generally precluded to avoid duplication and inconsistent outcomes and to preserve the labour-relations scheme.

## Conclusion

The Court required that workplace disputes grounded in a collective agreement proceed exclusively through grievance arbitration, and it confirmed that arbitrators can adjudicate Charter claims and award Charter remedies, including damages, when those claims fall within arbitral jurisdiction.


Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929 (Can.)