Bell Canada v. Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du Travail (Que.) and Bilodeau et al., (1988) 85 N.R. 295 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 26, 1988
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1988), 85 N.R. 295 (SCC);1988 CanLII 81 (SCC);15 QAC 217;21 CCEL 1;AZ-88111031;[1988] ACS no 41;[1988] 1 SCR 749;85 NR 295;[1988] SCJ No 41 (QL);51 DLR (4th) 161

Bell Can. v. WHSCC (1988), 85 N.R. 295 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Commission de la sante et de la Securite du Travail and Ginette Bilodeau (appellants) v. Bell Canada (respondent) and Joanne Carri Ere-Laniel, Communications Workers of Canada, Attorney General of Quebec and Attorney General of Canada (mis-en-cause)

(19103)

Indexed As: Bell Canada v. Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du Travail (Que.) and Bilodeau et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.

May 26, 1988.

Summary:

A pregnant employee of Bell Canada, a federal telecommunications undertaking, was reluctant to work on a VDT unit. The employee applied for protective reassignment pursuant to the provisions of the Quebec Occupational Health and Safety Act. Bell Canada challenged her application. The compensation officer of the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (Bilodeau) allowed the application and paid the employee the compensation provided for in s. 36 of the Act. Bell Canada applied for a writ of evocation, seeking a declaration, inter alia, that ss. 33, 36, 37 and 40-45 of the Act did not apply to a federal undertaking.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision reported as No. 500-05-012464-820 in J.E.-1021, allowed the application and issued a writ of evocation. The Commission appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a decision reported in [1984] C.A. 510; 16 D.L.R.(4th) 345, Monet, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The Commission and Bilodeau appealed. The chief constitutional issue in this case was: "Whether ss. 33, 36, 37 and 40-45 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act were constitutionally applicable to Bell Canada?" The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the impugned sections of the Act were not constitutionally applicable to Bell Canada.

See also the two previous cases in this volume.

Constitutional Law - Topic 1581

Extent of powers conferred - Double aspect doctrine - General - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the double aspect theory of constitutional jurisdiction - See paragraphs 29 to 37 - The court further held that the double aspect theory cannot be relied on to support the applicability of provincial legislation respecting industrial safety, specifically, the Quebec Occupational Health and Safety Act, to federal undertakings - See paragraphs 267 to 299.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6644

Federal jurisdiction - Interprovincial works and undertakings - Telecommunications - Telephones - The Supreme Court of Canada held that ss. 33, 36, 37 and 40-45 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, S.Q. 1979, c. 63 [now R.S.Q. 1977, c. S-2.1] cannot be constitutionally applicable to federal undertakings mentioned in ss. 91 (29) and 92(10)(a), (b) and (c) of the Constitution Act 1867, such as Bell Canada - The provincial Act is inapplicable when it has the effect of regulating matters such as working conditions (paras. 130-156), labour relations (paras. 157-166), and management of the undertakings subject to its jurisdiction (paras. 167-181), which fall within the primary jurisdiction of Parliament - In such circumstances, it is not relevant whether the Act impairs or not the operations and functioning of the federal undertaking.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6660

Federal jurisdiction - Interprovincial works and undertakings - Provincial laws of general application - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 6644 above].

Constitutional Law - Topic 6686

Federal jurisdiction - Federal undertakings - Ancillary powers - Labour relations - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that in principle labour relations and working conditions fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures under s. 92(13) of the Constitution Act 1867 (property and civil rights) - See paragraph 18 - Notwithstanding this rule, Parliament is vested with exclusive legislative jurisdiction over labour relations and working conditions when that jurisdiction is an integral part of its primary and exclusive jurisdiction over another class of subjects, as in the case with labour relations and working conditions in the federal undertakings covered by ss. 91 (29) and 92(10)(a), (b) and (c) - See paragraph 19.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7289

Provincial jurisdiction - Property and civil rights - Regulatory statutes - Labour relations - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 6686 above].

Constitutional Law - Topic 7296

Provincial jurisdiction - Property and civil rights - Regulatory statutes - Industrial safety - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Occupational Health and Safety Act, S.Q. 1979, c. 63 [now R.S.Q. 1977, c. S-2.1] was in travires the province, as dealing with property and civil rights, and applicable to undertakings which it may constitutionally cover - See paragraph 188.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7296

Provincial jurisdiction - Property and civil rights - Regulatory statutes - Industrial safety - [See Constitution al Law - Topic 6644 above].

Constitutional Law - Topic 7506

Provincial jurisdiction - Matters of a local or private nature - Health - The Supreme Court of Canada generally stated that general legislative jurisdiction over health belongs to the provinces, subject to the limited jurisdiction of Parliament ancillary to the powers expressly conferred by s. 91 of the Constitution Act 1867 or the emergency power relating to the peace, order and good government of Canada - This jurisdiction has historically been seen as resting with the provinces under s. 92(16) of the Constitution Act 1867 (matters of a merely local or private nature) - See paragraph 17.

Trade Regulation - Topic 7710

Industrial safety - Application of legislation - Provincial legislation to federal undertakings - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 6644 above].

Words and Phrases

Working conditions [which] may be physically dangerous - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the phrase "working conditions [which] may be physically dangerous" as found in s. 40 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, S.Q. 1979, c. 63, referred to the working environment - See paragraph 132.

Cases Noticed:

Alltrans Express Ltd. v. Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) et al. (1988), 85 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 2].

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Courtois et Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (Que.) et al. (1988), 85 N.R. 260, refd to. [para. 3].

Schneider v. British Columbia, Province of et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 112; 43 N.R. 91, refd to. [para. 17].

Toronto Electric Commissioners v. Snider, [1925] A.C. 396, refd to. [para. 18].

Reference re Minimum Wage Act of Saskatchewan, [1948] S.C.R. 248, consd. [para. 19].

Reference re Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, [1955] S.C.R. 529, consd. [para. 19].

Commission du Salaire minimum v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada, [1966] S.C.R. 767, agreed with [para. 19].

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Corporation of the Parish of Notre-Dame de Bonsecours, [1899] A.C. 367, refd to. [para. 20].

Natural Parents v. Superintendent of Child Welfare, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 751; 6 N.R. 491, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Dick, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 309; 62 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 20].

Derrickson v. Derrickson, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 285; 65 N.R. 278, refd to. [para. 20].

Workmen's Compensation Board v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company, [1920] A.C. 184, refd to. [para. 21].

Alltrans Express Ltd. v. Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia et al. (1983), 149 D.L.R.(3d) 385; [1983] 6 W.W.R. 372 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Hodge v. The Queen (1883), 9 App. Cas. 117, refd to. [para. 29].

Provincial Secretary of Prince Edward Island v. Egan, [1941] S.C.R. 396, refd to. [para. 31].

Smith v. The Queen, [1960] S.C.R. 776, refd to. [para. 32].

Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 161; 44 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 33].

Rio Hotel Ltd. v. Liquor Licencing Board (N.B.), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 59; 77 N.R. 104; 81 N.B.R.(2d) 328; 205 A.P.R. 328, refd to. [para. 34].

Attorney General for Canada v. Attorney General for Alberta, [1916] 1 A.C. 588, refd to. [para. 35].

C.S.S.T. v. Bell Canada, [1984] C.A. 510, refd to. [para. 39].

Re Alltrans Express Ltd. and Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia (1980), 116 D.L.R.(3d) 79; 25 B.C.L.R. 22, refd to. [para. 44].

Canadian National Railways v. Courtois et Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail et al., [1982] C.S. 99 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 53].

Canadian National Railways v. Courtois et Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail et al., [1983] C.A. 31 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Scowby v. Glendinning, [1986] 2 R.C.S. 226; 70 N.R. 241; 51 Sask.R. 208, refd to. [para. 154].

Re Forest Industries Flying Tankers Ltd. and Kellough (1980), 108 D.L.R. (3d) 686 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 156].

Re Canadian Pacific Ltd. and Attorney General of Alberta (1980), 20 A.R. 225; 108 D.L.R.(3d) 738 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 156, 266].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Haynes (1983), 46 N.R. 381 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 156, 266].

In the Matter of Legislative Jurisdiction over Hours of Labour, [1925] S.C.R. 505, refd to. [para. 192].

Letter Carriers Union of Canada v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 178, refd to. [para. 199].

Agence Maritime Inc. v. Conseil canadien des relations ouvrieres, [1969] S.C.R. 851, refd to. [para. 212].

Attorney General of Canada v. St. Hubert Base Teachers' Association, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 498; 49 N.R. 138, refd to. [para. 212].

Attorney General for Canada v. Attorney General for British Columbia, [1930] A.C. 111, refd to. [para. 214].

Bell Telephone Co. of Canada v. Minimum Wage Commission, [1966] Q.B. 301, refd to. [para. 220].

Johannesson v. Rural Municipality of West St. Paul, [1952] 1 S.C.R. 292, refd to. [para. 252].

Montcalm Construction Inc. v. Minimum Wage Commission et al., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 754; 25 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 265].

Four B Manufacturing Ltd. v. United Garment Workers of America, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1031; 30 N.R. 421, refd to. [para. 265].

Northern Telecom Ltée v. Communications Workers of Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 115; 28 N.R. 107, refd to. [para. 265].

Cours des sessions de la paix v. Association internationale des travailleurs en ponts, [1970] C.A. 512, refd to. [para. 266].

Re Field Aviation Co. and International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers Local Lodge 1579 (1974), 45 D.L.R.(3d) 751 (Alta. S.C.), refd to. [para. 266].

Jebsens (U.K.) Ltd. v. Lambert (1975), 64 D.L.R.(3d) 574 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 266].

Joyal v. Air Canada, [1976] C.S. 1211; revsd. [1982] C.A. 39, refd to. [para. 266].

Re Culley and Canadian Pacific Air Lines Ltd., [1977] 1 W.W.R. 393 (B.C. S.C.), refd to. [para. 266].

Re Attorney General of Quebec and A. & F. Baillargeon Express Inc. (1978), 97 D.L.R.(3d) 447 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 266].

Bell Canada v. Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, [1983] C.S. 677, refd to. [para. 266].

Great West Saddlery Co. v. The King, [1921] 2 A.C. 91, refd to. [para. 315].

Attorney General for Ontario v. Winner, [1954] A.C. 541, refd to. [para. 316].

Campbell Bennett Ltd. v. Comstock Mid western Ltd., [1954] S.C.R. 207, refd to. [para. 316].

Statutes Noticed:

Occupational Health and Safety Act, S.Q. 1979, c. 63, sect. 1 [paras. 68, 163-164, 178, 184]; sect. 2 [paras. 69, 128, 133-134, 151, 168, 294]; sect. 3 [para. 70]; sect. 4 [paras. 71, 135]; sect. 4(2) [para. 130]; sect. 9 [paras. 74, 132]; sect. 10 [para. 75]; sect. 11 [para. 163]; sect. 12 [paras. 76, 137, 319]; sect. 13 [para. 77]; sect. 14 [paras. 78, 138]; sect. 15, sect. 16 [para. 79]; sect. 18 [para. 80]; sect. 19 [paras. 81, 319]; sect. 20, sect. 21, sect. 22, sect. 23, sect. 24 [paras. 82, 319]; sect. 25 [para. 83]; sect. 26 [para. 84]; sect. 27 [paras. 84, 319]; sect. 28 [paras. 84, 138, 319]; sect. 30 [para. 85]; sect. 31 [paras. 86, 137]; sect. 32 [paras. 87, 139]; sect. 33 [paras. 4, 14, 57, 88, 327]; sect. 36 [paras. 4, 1415, 57, 88, 140, 327]; sect. 37 [paras. 4, 14, 57, 88, 327]; sect. 38 [paras. 89, 140]; sect. 39 [paras. 90, 140]; sect. 40 [paras. 4, 14, 57, 91, 132, 146, 327]; sect. 42, sect. 43 [paras. 4, 14, 57, 92, 140, 327]; sect. 44, sect. 45 [paras. 4, 14, 57, 92, 327]; sect. 46, sect. 47, sect. 48 [paras. 92, 139]; sect. 49 [paras. 93, 144, 159]; sect. 50 [paras. 95, 144]; sect. 51 [paras. 96, 144, 160, 175-176]; sect. 53 [para. 97]; sect. 53(2) [para. 151]; sect. 54 [para. 98]; sect. 58 [paras. 99, 177]; sect. 59 [paras. 99-100, 158, 175, 177]; sect. 60 [paras. 101, 177]; sect. 61 [para. 99]; sect. 62 [paras. 102, 115, 322]; sect. 63 [para. 103]; sect. 68, sect. 69 [paras. 104, 165]; sect. 71, sect. 72, sect. 73 [para. 105]; sect. 72 [para. 165]; sect. 78 [para. 106]; sect. 81 [para. 107]; sect. 90 [paras. 109, 165]; sect. 92, sect. 97 [para. 110]; sect. 98, sect. 99, sect. 100, sect. 101, sect. 102, sect. 103 [para. 11]; sect. 104, sect. 105, sect. 106, sect. 107, sect. 108, sect. 109, sect. 110, sect. 111, sect. 112, sect. 113, sect. 114, sect. 115, sect. 116, sect. 117, sect. 118, sect. 119, sect. 120, sect. 121, sect. 122, sect. 123, sect. 124, sect. 125, sect. 126, sect. 127, sect. 128, sect. 129, sect. 130, sect. 131, sect. 132, sect. 133, sect. 134, sect. 135, sect. 136 [para. 113]; sect. 137, sect. 138, sect. 139, sect. 140, sect. 141, sect. 142, sect. 143, sect. 14, sect. 145, sect. 146, sect. 147, sect. 148, sect. 149, sect. 150, sect. 151, sect. 152, sect. 153, sect. 154, sect. 155, sect. 156, sect. 157, sect. 158, sect. 159, sect. 160, sect. 161, sect. 162, sect. 163, sect. 164, sect. 165, sect. 166, sect. 167, sect. 168, sect. 169, sect. 170, sect. 171, sect. 172, sect. 173, sect. 174, sect. 175, sect. 176 [para. 114]; sect. 177,, sect. 178, sect. 179, sect. 180, sect. 181, sect. 182, sect. 183, sect. 184, sect. 185, sect. 186, sect. 187, sect. 188, sect. 189, sect. 190, sect. 191, sect. 192, sect. 193, [para. 115]; sect. 182, sect. 184, sect. 186 et seq. [para. 324]; sect. 186, sect. 187, sect. 188, sect. 189 [para. 323]; sect. 223 [paras. 117, 178]; sect. 223(11), sect. 223(12) [para. 151]; sect. 227, sect. 228, sect. 229, sect. 230, sect. 231, sect. 232, sect. 233 [para. 118]; sect. 234-246 [para. 119]; sect. 236 [para. 324]; sect. 247, sect. 248, sect. 249, sect. 250 [para. 120]; sect. 251-338 [para. 121].

Constitution Act 1867, sect. 91 [paras. 17, 36, 185, 187]; sect. 91(29) [paras. 19, 187, 190, 198, 236, 250]; sect. 92 [paras. 36, 185]; sect. 92(10)(a), sect. 92(10)(b), sect. 92(10)(c) [paras. 19, 190, 198, 250]; sect. 92(13) [paras. 18, 189]; sect. 92(16) [paras. 17, 187].

Workmen's Compensation Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. A-3, generally [paras. 26, 59].

Industrial Accidents and Occupational Diseases Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. A3.001, generally [para. 26].

Labour Standards Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. N-1.1, generally [paras. 26, 41, 59, 145]; sect. 52, sect. 78, sect. 79, sect. 89(6), sect. 89(8) [para. 148]; sect. 94 [para. 147]; sect. 122 [para. 146].

Labour Code, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-27, generally [paras. 41, 59, 145].

Canada Labour Code - see Labour Code.

Labour Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. L-1, generally [para. 44]; ss. 79-106.1 [para. 123]; sect. 79.1 [paras. 125, 294]; sect. 81, sect. 82.1, sect. 84.1, sect. 84 [para. 124]; sect. 97(2) [para. 126].

Labour Code Regulations, generally [para. 44].

Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-12, generally [para. 59]; sect. 46, sect. 55 [para. 153].

Minimum Wage Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. S-1, generally [para. 145].

Labour Standards Regulations, R.R.Q. 1981, c. N-1.1, rule 3, sect. 15, sect. 16, sect. 17, sect. 18, sect. 19, sect. 20, sect. 21, sect. 22, sect. 23, sect. 24, sect. 25, sect. 26, sect. 27, sect. 28, sect. 29, sect. 30, sect. 31, sect. 32, sect. 33, sect. 34, sect. 35 [para. 149].

Ministere de la sante et des services sociaux, an Act respecting the, R.S.Q. 1977, c. M-19.2, sect. 1 [para. 152].

Constitution of the International Labour Organization, 15 U.N.T.S. 40, Preamble [para. 155].

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 993 U.N.T.S. 13, sect. 7 [para. 155].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Laskin, Canadian Constitutional Law (5th Ed. 1986), vol. 1, p. 525 [para. 36].

Rochefort, Daniel, Les aspects juridiques de la santé et de la sécurité au travail, "Difficultes d'application de la Loi sur la santé et la sécurité du travail", Barreau du Quebec, Formation permanente, Cours 64, pp. 3032 [para. 143].

David, E., Le droit a la sante comme droit de la personne humaine (1985), 2 R.Q.D.I. 63, pp. 73, 74 [para. 150].

Brodet, Cliche, Racine and Thibault, Droit de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (1986), p. 7 [para. 173].

McKenzie, G.G., and Laskin, J.J., Report for the Ontario Ministry of Labour on the Administration of the Act respecting Occupational Health and Safety (January 1987), vol. 1 [para. 181].

Gibson, Dale, Interjurisdictional Immunity in Canadian Federalism (1969), 47 Can. Bar Rev. 40, pp. 53-57 [para. 244].

Weiler, Paul C., The Supreme Court and the Law of Canadian Federalism (1973), 23 UTLJ 307, pp. 340-343, 363 [para. 244].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (2nd Ed. 1985), pp. 329 [para. 310]; 329-332, 465-466 [paras. 244, 247, 299]; 330, 331 [para. 246].

Gibson, Dale, The "Federal Enclave" Fallacy in Canadian Constitutional Law (1976), 4 Alta. L. Rev. 167, p. 172 [para. 251].

Lippel, Katherine, Droit des travailleurs quebecois en matiere de sante (1885-1981), (1981-82), 16 R.J.T. 329, p. 331 [para. 282].

Counsel:

Yves Tardif and Henri Brun, for the appellants;

Franeois Mercier, Q.C., and Raymond Buist, for the respondent;

Jean-Franeois Jobin, for the mis-en-cause, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Gaspard Côté, Q.C., for the mis-en-cause, the Attorney General of Canada.

Solicitors of Record:

Dallaire, Joly-Ryan, Lafontaine & Associes, Longueuil, Quebec, for the appellants;

Buist, April & Plouffe, Stikeman, Elliott, Tamaki & Associes, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent;

Real-A. Forest, Ste-Foy, Quebec, for the mis-en-cause, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Gaspard Côté, Montreal, Quebec, for the mis-en-cause, the Attorney General of Canada.

This appeal was heard before Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada, on January 28-30, 1986.

The decision of the Supreme Court was delivered on May 26, 1988, by Beetz, J., in both official languages.

Chouinard, J., took no part in the judgment.