Executive Summary – Key Legal & Evidentiary Issues

• Whether UFCW’s application for judicial review was premature given the arbitration process was still ongoing.

• Allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias due to the employer-nominated arbitrator’s prior affidavit in a related proceeding.

• Assessment of finality vs. interlocutory nature of the arbitration panel’s decision on the bias objection.

• Consideration of whether the situation met the "exceptional circumstances" threshold for early judicial intervention.

• Evaluation of potential hardship or prejudice to UFCW if the arbitration proceeded as scheduled.

• Determination of the strength and substance of the bias claim, with the court finding it weak and unlikely to succeed.

Facts of the Case

The dispute arose during a grievance arbitration between the union (UFCW Local 1400) and the employer (Affinity Credit Union). The underlying grievance involved alleged breaches of the collective agreement by Affinity at two of its locations. Notably, this arbitration was separate from an earlier proceeding (referred to as the "Other Arbitration") involving the termination of a different employee.

Despite the factual separation, the two proceedings shared overlapping parties and a common panel member: Ms. Laura Sommervill, nominated by Affinity in both arbitrations. In the earlier matter, Ms. Sommervill had filed an affidavit in support of Affinity’s judicial review application, alleging exclusion from the decision-making process by the other panel members. This prompted UFCW to seek her disqualification from the current arbitration, asserting a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Before the arbitration hearing could begin, UFCW brought a preliminary application to disqualify Ms. Sommervill. The Tribunal unanimously rejected the application, concluding that no reasonable apprehension of bias existed. UFCW then applied to the Court of King’s Bench for Saskatchewan for judicial review of that decision. As a result, the arbitration was adjourned indefinitely, pending the outcome of the judicial review.

Arguments and Court’s Analysis

The court, presided over by Justice Gerecke, focused its decision on the doctrine of prematurity—a principle that discourages courts from intervening in incomplete administrative proceedings unless exceptional circumstances justify early judicial review.

UFCW argued that the Tribunal's bias ruling was final and, therefore, suitable for immediate judicial review. It contended that Ms. Sommervill’s prior affidavit, which supported the employer in separate proceedings, demonstrated a lack of impartiality and precluded her participation in future matters involving UFCW.

Affinity countered that the application was premature and lacked merit, emphasizing that the decision in question was interlocutory and the bias allegation insufficient to meet the high threshold required for early judicial intervention.

Justice Gerecke agreed with Affinity. He concluded that the judicial review was premature and failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances warranting an exception to the general rule. The court highlighted the importance of deferring to administrative tribunals until they reach final decisions to avoid delay, fragmentation, and inefficiency in the resolution of disputes.

The allegation of bias was also found to be weak. The judge noted that Ms. Sommervill’s affidavit in the previous case focused on procedural concerns rather than expressing animus or alignment against UFCW. Moreover, the fact that the Tribunal’s decision to reject the bias objection was unanimous (including the union’s own nominee) further undermined UFCW’s claim.

Outcome

The court dismissed UFCW’s application for judicial review, ruling that:

• The application was premature as the arbitration had not yet concluded.

• There were no exceptional circumstances to justify early court intervention.

• The apprehension of bias claim was unsubstantiated and unlikely to succeed.

• UFCW was ordered to pay costs to Affinity.