Court File No

Court File No. 32735 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES) BETWEEN: SHEILA FULLOWKA, DOREEN SHAUNA HOURIE, TRACEY NEILL, JUDIT PANDEV, ELLA MAY CAROL RIGGS, DOREEN VODNOSKI, CARLENE DAWN ROWSELL, KAREN RUSSELL and BONNIE LOU SAWLER Appellants (Applicants) – and – PINKERTON’S OF CANADA LIMITED, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES AS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, TRANSPORTATION AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION OF CANADA, BETTGER, TIMOTHY ALEXANDER ROYAL OAK VENTURES INC. (formerly ROYAL OAK MINES INC. Respondents AND BETWEEN: JAMES O’NEIL Appellant (Applicant) - and - PINKERTON’S OF CANADA LIMITED, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES AS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, TRANSPORTATION AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION OF CANADA, BETTGER, TIMOTHY ALEXANDER ROYAL OAK VENTURES INC. (formerly ROYAL OAK MINES INC. Respondents ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO Intervenors JOINT RESPONSE FACTUM OF THE APPELLANTS (Sheila Fullowka, Doreen Shauna Hourie, Tracey Neill, Judit Pandev, Ella May Carol Riggs, Doreen Vodnoski, Carlene Dawn Rowsell, Karen Russell, Bonnie Lou Sawler and James O’Neil) (Pursuant to Rules 29(4) and 35(4) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada) BISHOP & MCKENZIE LLP Barristers and Solicitors OSLER, HOSKIN & HARCOURT LLP Barristers and Solicitors <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">2500-10104-103 Ave. </li><li style="flex:1">1900 - 340 Albert Street </li></ul><ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Edmonton, Alberta, T5J 1V3 </li><li style="flex:1">Ottawa, ON K1R 7Y6 </li></ul><ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">J. Philip Warner, Q.C. </li><li style="flex:1">Patricia J. Wilson </li></ul><ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Tel: 780-421-2464 </li><li style="flex:1">Tel: 613-787-1009 </li></ul><ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Fax: 780-426-1305 </li><li style="flex:1">Fax: 613-235-2867 </li></ul>E-mail: [email protected] Counsel for the Applicants, Sheila Fullowka et al E-mail: [email protected] Ottawa Agent for Sheila Fullowka et al TO: REGISTRAR OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT AND TO: James E. Redmond, Q.C. 1000, 10180 – 101 Street Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP 1900 – 340 Albert Street <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Ottawa ON K1Y 7Y6 </li><li style="flex:1">Edmonton AB T5J 3S4 </li></ul>Patricia J. Wilson Telephone: (780) 409-8289 Facsimile: (780) 423-2368 E-mail: [email protected] Telephone: (613) 235-7234 Facsimile: (613) 235-2867 E-mail: [email protected] Solicitor for the Appellant James O’Neil Agent to Solicitor for the Appellant James O’Neil AND TO: John M. Hope, Q.C. Duncan & Craig LLP 2800 Scotia Place Jeffrey W. Beedell Lang Michener LLP 300 - 50 O'Connor Street <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Ottawa, ON K1P 6L2 </li><li style="flex:1">10060 Jasper Avenue </li></ul>Edmonton, AB T5J 3V9 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Tel.: (780) 428-6036 </li><li style="flex:1">Tel.: (613) 232-7171 </li></ul><ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Fax: (780) 428-9683 </li><li style="flex:1">Fax: (613) 231-3191 </li></ul><ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">E-mail: [email protected] </li><li style="flex:1">E-mail: [email protected] </li></ul>Solicitors for the Respondent Pinkerton’s of Canada Limited Agent for Solicitors for the Respondent Pinkerton’s of Canada Limited <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Peter D. Gibson </li><li style="flex:1">Jeffrey W. Beedell </li></ul><ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Field LLP </li><li style="flex:1">Lang Michener LLP </li></ul>300 - 50 O'Connor Street Ottawa, ON K1P 6L2 2000 Oxford Tower 10235 - 101 St. N.W. Edmonton, AB T5J 3G1 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Tel.: (780) 423-7631 </li><li style="flex:1">Tel.: (613) 232-7171 </li></ul><ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Fax: (780) 424-7116 </li><li style="flex:1">Fax: (613) 231-3191 </li></ul><ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">E-mail: [email protected] </li><li style="flex:1">E-mail: [email protected] </li></ul>Solicitors for the Respondent Government of the Northwest Territories Agent for Solicitors for the Respondent Government of the Northwest Territories - 3 - <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Patrick G. Nugent </li><li style="flex:1">Coleen Bauman </li></ul>Chivers Carpenter 101 - 10426, 81 Ave N.W. Edmonton, AB T6E 1X5 Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP 500 – 30 Metcalfe Street Ottawa, ON K1P 5L4 Tel.: (780) 439-3611 Ext: 238 Fax: (780) 439-8543 Tel.: (613) 235-5327 Fax: (613) 235-3041 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">E-mail: [email protected] </li><li style="flex:1">E-mail: [email protected] </li></ul><ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Solicitors for the Respondents </li><li style="flex:1">Agent for Solicitors for the </li></ul>National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada Respondents National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">S. Leonard Polsky </li><li style="flex:1">Jeffrey W. Beedell </li></ul>MacPherson Leslie & Tyerman 2507, 10088 – 102 Avenue N.W. Calgary, AB T5J 2Z1. Lang Michener LLP 300 - 50 O'Connor Street Ottawa, ON K1P 6L2 Tel.: (403) 693-4300 Fax: (403) 508-4349 E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: (613) 232-7171 Fax: (613) 231-3191 E-mail: [email protected] Solicitors for the Respondent Timothy Alexander Bettger Agent for Solicitors for the Respondent Timothy Alexander Bettger Robert G. McBean, Q.C. Parlee McLaws LLP 1500 Manulife Place 10180 – 101 St. N.W. Edmonton, AB T5J 4K1 Stephen J. Grace Maclaren Corlett 1625 - 50 O'Connor Street Ottawa, ON K1P 6L2 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Tel.: (780) 423-8580 </li><li style="flex:1">Tel.: (613) 233-1146 </li></ul><ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Fax: (780) 423-2870 </li><li style="flex:1">Fax: (613) 233-7190 </li></ul><ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">E-mail: [email protected] </li><li style="flex:1">E-mail: [email protected] </li></ul>Solicitors for the Respondent Royal Oak Ventures Inc. Agent for Solicitors for the Respondent Royal Oak Ventures Inc. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">John S. Tyhurst </li><li style="flex:1">Christopher Rupar </li></ul>Attorney General of Canada 234 Wellington Street, Room 1251 Ottawa ON K1A 0H8 Deputy Attorney General of Canada Department of Justice 1212 – 234 Wellington Street Ottawa ON K1A 0H8 Tel: 613-957-4860 Fax: 613-954-1920 Tel: 613-941-2351 Fax: 613-954-1920 E-mail: <a href="mailto:[email protected]" target="_blank">[email protected] </a>Agent for Attorney General of Canada - 4 - Lise Favreau (LSUC no. 25251P) Attorney General for Ontario Crown Law Office – Civil Law 20 Bay Street, 8th Floor Toronto ON M5G 2K1 Tel: 416-325-7078 Robert E. Houston Burke Robertson Barristers and Solicitors 70 Gloucester Street Ottawa ON K2P 0A2 Tel: 613-236-9665 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Fax: 613-235-4430 </li><li style="flex:1">Fax: 416-326-4181 </li></ul>E-mail: [email protected] <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Counsel for Attorney General </li><li style="flex:1">Agent for Attorney General for Ontario </li></ul>TABLE OF CONTENTS <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">PART I. </li><li style="flex:1">OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS………….…... </li><li style="flex:1">1</li></ul>1 Overview: The Respondents raise grounds of foreseeability and damages……………………………………………………. Statement of Facts: •<ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">The deaths were foreseeable…………………………… </li><li style="flex:1">1</li></ul>PART II. STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………….….. 13 Issue 1: The deaths were reasonably foreseeable……………... 13 (a) Justice Lutz is entitled to deference…………….. 13 (b) All the Respondents foresaw the deaths...……… 13 Issue 2: Personal Consumption Rates (Damages)….………… 13 (a) The Respondents’ arguments are not properly before this Court…………………………………. 13 (b) Justice Lutz did not err in his choice of Personal Consumption Rate……………………… 13 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">PART III. STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT……………………………… </li><li style="flex:1">14 </li></ul>Issue 1: The deaths were reasonably foreseeable……………. (a) Justice Lutz is entitled to deference ………....... (b) All the Respondents foresaw the deaths …….... 14 14 15 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Issue 2: Personal Consumption Rates (Damages)…………… </li><li style="flex:1">16 </li></ul>16 (a) The Respondents’ arguments are not properly before this Court………………………………... (b) Justice Lutz did not err in his choice of Personal Consumption Rates………………….....16 PART VI. LIST OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………..21 PART VII. STATUTORY PROVISIONS............................................................22 Part I: Overview and Statement of Facts Overview: The Respondents raise grounds of foreseeability and damages <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">1. </li><li style="flex:1">The Respondents seek to uphold the Court of Appeal’s judgment on a ground not relied </li></ul>on by the Court of Appeal, namely, on the ground that Justice Lutz made a “palpable and overriding error” when he found that the deaths of the nine miners were foreseeable.1 Certain Respondents also purport to attack Justice Lutz’s findings on “PCR’s”, though the Court of Appeal did not find that Justice Lutz committed any error in that regard.2 2. The deaths were foreseeable 3. Even before the strike started, the GNWT recognized that if Royal Oak continued Pursuant to Rules 29(4) and 35(4),3 the Appellants therefore file this Factum in response. operating during the strike, inadequate security would expose the replacement workers to risk. In a memo dated May 15, 1992,4 the GNWT wrote: The Giant Mine site is not secure…. Accordingly, there is considerable concern within the Department of Safety and Public Services about the safety of any “replacement workers”, as well as concern about the safety of management personnel, Mine Safety Inspectors, and any other persons required to go underground. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">4. </li><li style="flex:1">On May 27, after the strike began, the Director of the Safety Division, the Acting </li></ul>Director of Mine Safety and the Fire Marshal (MacRae, Gould and Bell) advised GNWT’s Deputy Minister of Safety and Public Services (Quirke) to shut the Giant Mine because:5 1 Justice Lutz found foreseeability in RFJ para. 658-664, 745, 902 (Appellants’ Joint Record, Vol. I, pp 9-11, 37, 87); the Court of Appeal sustained Justice Lutz’s finding at para. 55 (Appellants’ Joint Record, Vol. III, p 107); the Respondents argue that Justice Lutz’s finding was erroneous in Bettger’s Factum, paragraph 61, Pinkerton’s Factum, paragraph 64, CAW’s Factum, paragraph 37 ff.; GNWT’s factum, paragraph 15 2 The damages issues are raised in GNWT factum paragraph 86 ff., Bettger’s factum paragraph 134, Pinkerton’s factum paragraph 117; the Court of Appeal declined to rule on damages in CAMJ para. 207 (Appellants’ Joint Record, Vol. III, p 185). 3 Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada 4 Exhibit 761 (Appellants’ Joint Supplementary Record, Tab S26, p. 7) 5 Exhibit 762 (Appellants’ Joint Record, Vol. XII, Tab 153, pp 76-78) Page 2 1. There has been vandalism and acts of arson well within the confines of the mine site. This has placed the on site workers at extreme risk. 2. Given the inability of Royal Oak Mines to maintain the security of the site, the next act of vandalism or arson could result in fatalities to on site persons. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">5. </li><li style="flex:1">On the following day, Gould wrote Dennis Patterson (the GNWT’s Minister of Safety </li></ul>and Public Services)6 describing a number of the strikers’ recent attacks and saying that he would issue a closure order, because “the occupational health and safety of employees is endangered”.7 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">6. </li><li style="flex:1">On the same day, the CASAW’s national office published a bulletin stating:8 </li></ul>Although the strike is only five days old as I write, the situation has begun to develop into confrontation…. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">a</li><li style="flex:1">vicious and dangerous </li></ul>Fires have been breaking out inside the plant regularly. Confrontations with scab security forces are a frequent occurrence. The use of explosives and the mining of roadways has also become a factor. Two company vehicles have been destroyed. As you can see, this is not a normal five day old strike but might be better described as an undeclared war. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">7. </li><li style="flex:1">Warren testified that the strike was a “war zone” where the opposing sides were </li></ul>“completely, adamantly opposed to each other, unbelievable.”9 Bettger testified in discoveries 6 Exhibit 763 (Appellants’ Joint Record, Vol. XII, Tab 154, pp 79-81) 7 Exhibit 1160 (Appellants’ Joint Supplementary Record, Vol. III, Tab S36, p. 98) 8 Exhibit 746 (Appellants’ Joint Record, Vol. XII, Tab 147, p. 48) 9 Warren video evidence (Appellants’ Joint Supplementary Record, Vol. III, Tab S23, p. 1) Response Factum Apr 23 2009.doc / 23-Apr-09 Page 3 that the strike was an “unreal environment”10 and “the rules you normally lived by didn’t seem to apply in the situation”.11 RCMP Officer Nancy Defer testified: 12 It appeared that any action could be justified because of the strike…. It was mayhem. I've never experienced any kind of a situation like that before. I don't want to ever experience it again either. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">8. </li><li style="flex:1">On July 6, 1992 the union local president (Schram) wrote a letter to the CAW’s president, </li></ul>Hargrove, stating:13 Our local is engaged in a fierce battle against the scabbing and police-state tactics of our employer, Royal Oak Mines. We have now been on strike for six weeks, which may not sound long, except for the ferocity of the situation. …The company has installed forty-plus of the infamous Pinkerton’s with attack dogs inside the minesite, after our members drove a Sudbury-based security firm from the property…. …Many casualties have been inflicted on the Pinkertons. Criminal and civil charges have been laid against dozens of our members, and thirty-eight of our 240 people have been fired…. Confrontation on the lines, in the streets, and in the courts is now the order of the day. We have the very real apprehension that someone is going to die here before it all ends…. Thanks once again for your offer of assistance. With the support of dedicated people like yourselves, we will re-bury the spectre of scab labour in whatever horrible place from which it has arisen. 10 Bettger Read-in Evidence (Appellants’ Joint Supplementary Record, Vol. I, p. 13, Tab S5,) 11 Bettger Read-in Evidence (Appellants’ Joint Supplementary Record, Vol. I, p. 12, Tab S4) 12 Defer Evidence (Appellants’ Joint Record, Vol. VIII, Tab 99-110, p. 97) 13 Exhibit 963 (Appellants’ Joint Supplementary Record, Vol. III, Tab S30, p. 28) Response Factum Apr 23 2009.doc / 23-Apr-09 Page 4 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">9. </li><li style="flex:1">Hargrove sent a CAW employee (Harold David) to Yellowknife to “ram the God damned </li></ul>hell out of the scabs”.14 After one day in Yellowknife, David, a professional strike organizer,15 said, “I haven’t seen anything like this in my 30 years plus union experience.”16 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">10. </li><li style="flex:1">Pinkerton’s took the place of the Cambrian security firm, which the strikers had driven </li></ul>from the mine site. Pinkerton’s was, of course, well-aware of the strikers’ violence – it was the very reason that Pinkerton’s was called to Yellowknife. Pinkerton’s knew that security was "absolutely necessary for effective coping with labour strikes such as vandalism, sabotage, mischief, bombs, terrorism, kidnappings, assault, intimidation, espionage and similar threats."17 Though Pinkerton’s had no formal written contract with Royal Oak (there were only letters and invoices18), Pinkerton’s understood that its mandate was to protect “people and assets and to make sure that there’s a plant to go back to work….”19 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">11. </li><li style="flex:1">This Court can get an insight into the strike’s “unreal environment” by considering </li></ul>Doreen Hourie’s testimony about her experiences on June 14.20 On that afternoon, Mrs. Hourie was taken across the picket lines to see her husband, Norm, a miner who had been living at the mine site for the previous three weeks. That evening, scores of strikers equipped with baseball bats, bear spray, helmets and shin pads invaded the mine site in an organized attack later called “The Riot”.21 Mrs. Hourie’s testimony leaves no doubt that the injuries she received that evening were intentionally inflicted. (Mrs. Hourie’s husband, Norm, was later to be killed in the fatal 14 RFJ para. 888 (Appellants’ Joint Record, Vol. II, pp. 82-83); Appellants’ Joint Record, Vol. IX, Smith evidence p. 193:37-41 (TAB 99-157), David evidence pp. 194:43-45 & 195:45-196:1 (TAB 99-158 & 99-159); Vol. VIII, Mitic read-in pp. 56:46-57:3 (TAB 99-88); Exhibit 1205 (Appellants’ Joint Record, Vol. XV, pp. 3-137 at 58-59) TAB 179 15 David evidence (Appellants’ Joint Supplementary Record, Vol. I, Tab S16, p. 47) 16 David evidence (Appellants’ Joint Supplementary Record, Vol. I, Tab S18, p. 52) 17 Exhibit 986 (Appellants’ Joint Supplementary Record, Vol. III, Tab S31, p. 30) 18 Exhibits 822 (Respondents’ Joint Record, Volume 4, Tab 7), Exhibits 824, 1104 & 1106 (Appellants’ Joint Supplementary Record, Tab S28, p.24; Tab S34, p. 89; Tab S35, p. 95) 19 St. Amour evidence (Respondents’ Joint Record, Vol. II, Tab S5, p. 62), Witte evidence), Fullowka Plaintiffs’ Opening Statement, Dales evidence, O’Sullivan evidence (Appellants’ Joint Supplementary Record, Vol. I, Tab S15, p.45-46; Tab S3, p.10-11; Tab S9, p. 27; Tab S6, p. 14), Exhibit 823 (Appellants’ Joint Supplementary Record, Vol. III, Tab S27, p. 10); Pinkerton’s refers to “limitations” in its contract, but its mandate was broad. It also suggests that Royal Oak was stingy, but from June to December, 1992, Pinkerton’s billed $2,807,471.32 and was paid $2,554,449.79 to pursue its mandate. 20 Doreen Hourie evidence (Appellants’ Joint Supplementary Record, Tab S7, pp. 15-25) 21 RFJ para. 101 (Appellants’ Joint Record, Vol. I, p. 37) Response Factum Apr 23 2009.doc / 23-Apr-09 Page 5 blast.) The GNWT’s Minister of Safety & Public Services (Paterson) acknowledged that if the RCMP had not attended during The Riot, there could have been loss of life.22 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">12. </li><li style="flex:1">Pete Smith, a CAW national representative, went to the picket line and watched The </li></ul>Riot.23 The next day, he issued the following press release24:

Court File No

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support