Canada (Procureur général) v. Alliance de la Fonction publique du Canada, (1991) 123 N.R. 161 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 21, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1991), 123 N.R. 161 (SCC);48 Admin LR 161;[1991] SCJ No 19 (QL);JE 91-580;123 NR 161;[1991] 1 SCR 614;1991 CanLII 88 (SCC);80 DLR (4th) 520

Can. (P.g.) v. PSAC (1991), 123 N.R. 161 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

L'Alliance de la Fonction publique du Canada (appellant) v. Sa Majesté la Reine, représenté par le Procureur général du Canada (respondent) and Econosult Inc. (third party)

(21393)

Indexed As: Canada (Procureur général) v. Alliance de la Fonction publique du Canada

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin, JJ.

March 21, 1991.

Summary:

The Solicitor General of Canada offered educational programs to penitentiary inmates. Initially, the teachers were public servants represented by the Public Service Alliance of Canada (P.S.A.C.). Since 1985 the federal government contracted with private firms to supply teachers to a Quebec penitentiary. The P.S.A.C. applied under s. 33 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act for a finding that the teachers were public ser­vants. The Public Service Staff Relations Board found the teachers to be public ser­vants. The Attorney General applied under s. 28 of the Federal Court Act to set aside the decision.

The Federal Court of Appeal, Hugessen, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported 97 N.R. 116, allowed the application. The court held that the teachers were private sector employees, not public servants. The court stated that it was not the function of the Board to determine who was a public ser­vant. The P.S.A.C. appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Cory, J., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Labour Law - Topic 9025

Public service labour relations - Defini­tions - Public servant - The Solicitor General offered educational programs to prison inmates through teachers who were public servants represented by the Public Service Alliance of Canada - In 1985 the federal government contracted with private firms to supply teachers to a Quebec prison - The Public Service Staff Rela­tions Board ruled under s. 33 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act that the teachers were "public servants" - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the Board lacked jurisdiction to determine whether the teachers were public servants; such authority was contrary to s. 8 of the Public Service Employment Act which expressly reserved this power to the Public Service Commission.

Labour Law - Topic 9025

Public service labour relations - Defini­tions - Public servant - The Supreme Court of Canada disagreed with the state­ment that "a person can well be a member of a bargaining unit for collective bargain­ing purposes, and yet not be a public servant entitled to all the special benefits and prerequisites that flow from member­ship in the public service".

Labour Law - Topic 9053

Public service labour relations - The board - Jurisdiction - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the Public Service Staff Relations Board had no jurisdiction to decide that persons hired by a private contract fell within the definition of "employee" in the Public Service Staff Relations Act notwithstanding that they had not been appointed as public servants under established statutory requirements.

Cases Noticed:

Syndicat général du Cinéma et de la Télé­vision v. National Film Board and Public Service Staff Relations Board, [1978] 1 F.C. 346; 16 N.R. 387 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Doré v. Canada, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 503; 81 N.R. 77, refd to. [para. 11].

Syndicat national des employés de la commission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employ­és de service, local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 15].

Paccar of Canada Ltd. v. Canadian Asso­ciation of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers, Local 14, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 983; 102 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 16].

Service Employees International Union, Local 204 v. Kennedy Lodge Inc., [1984] O.L.R.B. 931, refd to. [para. 22].

Re Brantwood Manor Nursing Homes Ltd. (1986), 12 C.L.R.B.R.(N.S.) 332, refd to. [para. 22].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Brault, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 489; 81 N.R. 61, refd to. [para. 34].

Canada Post Corp. v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers et al., [1989] 1 F.C. 176; 82 N.R. 249 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission, [1969] 2 A.C. 147, refd to. [para. 54].

Re Racal Communications Ltd., [1981] A.C. 374 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 58].

O'Reilly v. Mackman, [1983] 2 A.C. 237 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 59].

Gray v. Powell (1941), 314 U.S. 402, refd to. [para. 62].

National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications Inc. (1944), 322 U.S. 111, refd to. [para. 63].

Udall v. Tallman (1965), 380 U.S. 1, refd to. [para. 64].

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Corp., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 227; 26 N.R. 341; 25 N.B.R.(2d) 237; 51 A.P.R. 237, refd to. [para. 67].

National Corn Growers Association v. Canadian Import Tribunal, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1324; 114 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 68].

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Inter­national Union of Operating Engineers, Local 796, [1970] S.C.R. 425, refd to. [para. 70].

Bell v. Ontario Human Rights Commis­sion, [1971] S.C.R. 756, refd to. [para. 70].

Blanco v. Commission des Loyers and Paxmill Corp., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 827; 35 N.R. 585, refd to. [para. 70].

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (U.A.W.), Local 720 v. Volvo Canada Ltd., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 178; 27 N.R. 502, refd to. [para. 74].

McConnell v. Douglas Aircraft Co. of Canada and O'Shea, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 245; 29 N.R. 109, refd to. [para. 74].

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, Branch 63 v. Alberta Public Service Employees Relations Board and Board of Governors of Olds College, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 923; 42 N.R. 559; 37 A.R. 281, refd to. [para. 74].

Teamsters Local Union 938 of the Inter­national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America et al. v. Massicotte and Canada Labour Relations Board, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 710; 44 N.R. 340, refd to. [para. 75].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Syndicat des employés de production du Québec et de l'Acadie, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 412; 55 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 78].

Statutes Noticed:

Financial Administration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11, sect. 11(2) [para. 13]; sect. 11(3) [para. 89].

Industrial Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 272, sect. 34(1) [para. 22].

Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, sect. 5, sect. 6 [para. 23]; sect. 16 [para. 22]; sect. 107(1) [para. 38].

Labour Code, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-27, sect. 39 [para. 22].

Labour Relations Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. L-10, sect. 142(5) [para. 22].

Labour Relations Code, S.A. 1988, c. L-1.2, sect. 11(3) [para. 22].

Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. P-32, sect. 2(1) [para. 13]; sect. 8 [paras. 13, 88]; sect. 22, sect. 23, sect. 24, sect. 25, sect. 26, sect. 27 [para. 25].

Public Service Staff Relations Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. P-35, sect. 2 [paras. 13, 87]; sect. 3 [para. 23]; sect. 7 [para. 13]; sect. 33 [paras. 12, 87]; sect. 57 [para. 25]; sect. 98 [paras. 12, 87].

Trade Union Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 475, sect. 19(1) [para. 22].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Craig, Paul D., Administrative Law (2nd Ed. 1989), pp. 5-6 [para. 61]; 259 [para. 57].

Schwartz, Bernard, and H.W.R. Wade, Legal Control of Government: Admini­strative Law in Britain and the United States (1972), p. 205 [para. 60].

Wade, William, Administrative Law (6th Ed. 1988), pp. 298-299 [para. 66].

Counsel:

Dianne Nicholas, for the appellant;

Raymond Piché and Gaspard Côté, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Dianne Nicholas, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

John C. Tait, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on May 22, 1990, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and Mc­Lachlin, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On March 21, 1991, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Sopinka, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and McLach­ lin, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 39;

Cory, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 40 to 112.