Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al., (1995) 177 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 27, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1995), 177 N.R. 1 (SCC);121 DLR (4th) 385;177 NR 1;[1995] SCJ No 4 (QL);52 ACWS (3d) 1258;1995 CanLII 148 (SCC);[1995] 1 SCR 157;27 Admin LR (2d) 1;[1995] ACS no 4

CBC v. CLRB (1995), 177 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a body politic and corporate continued under the Broadcasting Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-9.01 (appellant) v. The Canada Labour Relations Board, a board established pursuant to the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2 and Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, a trade union made with the meaning of the Canada Labour Code, bargaining agent for certain of the appellant's employees and Dale Goldhawk (respondents)

(23142)

Indexed As: Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé,

Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin,

Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

January 27, 1995.

Summary:

Goldhawk hosted a CBC public affairs radio program. He was also the president of ACTRA, a union representing writers, jour­nalists and performers. Goldhawk wrote an article against free trade which was pub­lished in the union newsletter. The CBC, concerned that Goldhawk's article violated its journalistic policy of impartiality, told Goldhawk to choose between his job as host of the radio program and his position as president of the union. Goldhawk resigned as union president. The union filed a complaint with the Canada Labour Relations Board. The Board found that the CBC's actions amounted to an unjustified interference with the administration of a trade union or the representation of employees by a trade union in vio­lation of s. 94(1)(a) of the Canada Labour Code. The CBC applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at [1992] 2 F.C. 665; 141 N.R. 116; 92 D.L.R.(4th) 316; 92 C.L.L.C. 14,035, dis­missed the application. The CBC ap­pealed.

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

Administrative Law - Topic 3202

Judicial review - General - Scope of review - [See Labour Law - Topic 3641 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 9103

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Scope of review - [See Labour Law - Topic 3641 ].

Labour Law - Topic 435

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Boards - Jurisdiction - Canada Labour Relations Board - Section 94(1)(a) of the Canada Labour Code provided that "[n]o employer ... shall participate in or inter­fere with the formation or admin­is­tration of a trade union or the represen­ta­tion of employees by a trade union" - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the scope of the juris­diction of the Canada Labour Relations Board with respect to the application of s. 94(1)(a) - See paragraphs 32 to 43, 94 to 97 and 105 to 110.

Labour Law - Topic 3502

Unions - Unfair labour practices - Gen­eral - Jurisdiction - [See Labour Law - Topic 435 ].

Labour Law - Topic 3546

Unions - Unfair labour practices - By employer - Interference with formation of a union, administration of union or repre­sentation of employees by union - Gold­hawk hosted a CBC radio program and was also the president of a union repre­senting writers, journalists and performers - Goldhawk wrote an article against free trade in the union newsletter - The CBC, concerned about its journalistic policy of impartiality, told Goldhawk to choose between his job as host of the radio pro­gram and his position as union president - The Canada Labour Relations Board found that the CBC's actions amounted to an unjustified interference with the adminis­tration of a trade union or the representa­tion of employees by a trade union in violation of the Canada Labour Code, s. 94(1)(a) - The Supreme Court of Canada declined to interfere, holding that the Board's decision was not patently unrea­sonable.

Labour Law - Topic 3641

Unions - Unfair labour practices - Judicial review - General - Goldhawk hosted a CBC radio program and was also the president of a union - Goldhawk wrote an article against free trade in the union newsletter - The CBC, concerned about its journalistic policy of impartiality, told Goldhawk to choose between hosting the radio program and his position as union president - The Canada Labour Relations Board found that the CBC's actions amounted to an unfair labour practice in violation of s. 94(1)(a) of the Canada Labour Code - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the standard of review applicable to the Boar­d's decision - See paragraphs 28 to 50 and 102 to 110 - In particular the court con­sidered the stan­dard of review appli­cable where an admi­nistra­tive tribunal interprets a statute other than its constitu­ting legisla­tion - See para­graphs 44 to 49, 89 to 92 and 128 to 131.

Cases Noticed:

Canada Post Corp. (1988), 75 di 189, refd to. [paras. 14, 124].

Canada Post Corp. (1987), 71 di 215, refd to. [paras. 21, 124].

Pezim v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557; 168 N.R. 321; 46 B.C.A.C. 1; 75 W.A.C. 1; [1994] 7 W.W.R. 1, refd to. [para. 28].

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; 24 Q.A.C. 244, refd to. [para. 30].

Canada (Procureur général) v. Alliance de la Fonction publique du Canada, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 614; 123 N.R. 161; 80 D.L.R.(4th) 520, consd. [para. 31].

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; 62 D.L.R.(3d) 437; 89 C.L.L.C. 14,050; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 673; 40 Admin. L.R. 181, refd to. [para. 31].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Ser­vice Alliance of Canada, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 941; 150 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 31].

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; 97 D.L.R.(3d) 417; 79 C.L.L.C. 14,209, refd to. [para. 34].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Le Syndicat des employés de production du Québec et de l'Acadie, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 412; 55 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 39].

Dayco (Canada) Ltd. v. National Automo­bile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple­ment Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 230; 152 N.R. 1; 63 O.A.C. 1; 102 D.L.R.(4th) 609, refd to. [para. 39].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (1991), 86 di 92, refd to. [para. 41].

Domtar Inc. v. Commission d'appel en matière de lésions professionnelles et autres, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 756; 154 N.R. 104; 55 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 43].

Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police et al. v. Ontario Nurses' Association et al. (1990), 41 O.A.C. 148 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

MacLeod, Re, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 517; 2 N.R. 443, consd. [para. 45].

McLeod v. Egan - see MacLeod, Re.

Saskatchewan Joint Board, Retail, Whole­sale and Department Store Union v. MacDonalds Consolidated Ltd. et al. (1985), 43 Sask.R. 260 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 579 v. Bradco Construction Ltd., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 316; 153 N.R. 81; 106 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 140; 334 A.P.R. 140; 102 D.L.R.(4th) 402, refd to. [para. 46].

Board of Education of Wentworth County et al. v. Wentworth Women Teachers' Association et al. (1991), 53 O.A.C. 325; 80 D.L.R.(4th) 558 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 47].

Ontario Nurses' Association v. Etobicoke General Hospital (1993), 64 O.A.C. 66; 14 O.R.(3d) 40 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 47].

Planet Development Corp. and Lester (W.W.) (1978) Ltd. v. United Associ­ation of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 740, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 644; 123 N.R. 241; 88 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 15; 274 A.P.R. 15; 91 C.L.L.C. 14,002; 76 D.L.R.(4th) 389; 48 Admin. L.R. 1, refd to. [para. 69].

Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees' Union, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211; 126 N.R. 161; 48 O.A.C. 241; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 545; 4 C.R.R.(2d) 193, consd. [para. 70].

Almeida and Capizzo v. Canada (Treasury Board), [1991] 1 F.C. 266; 116 N.R. 161 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 74].

Quan v. Canada (Treasury Board); Bodkin v. Canada (Attorney General), [1990] 2 F.C. 191; 107 N.R. 147 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

United Steelworkers of America v. Adams Mine, Cliffs of Canada Ltd. (1982), 1 Can. L.R.B.R.(N.S.) 384 (Ont.), dist. [para. 78].

McDonnell Douglas Canada Ltd., [1988] O.L.R.B. Rep. May 498, refd to. [para. 83].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554; 149 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 104].

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. British Colum­bia Hydro and Power Authority (1992), 19 B.C.A.C. 215; 34 W.A.C. 215; 72 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 121].

British Columbia Hydro and Power Au­thority v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Locals 258 and 213, [1976] 2 Can. L.R.B.R. 410 (B.C.), refd to. [para. 121].

Inco Ltd. v. United Steelworkers of America, Local 6166 (1978), 86 D.L.R.(3d) 407 (Man. C.A.), affing. (1977), 81 D.L.R.(3d) 469 (Man. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 121].

Health Labour Relations Association v. Hospital Employees' Union, Local 180 (1983), 3 Can. L.R.B.R.(N.S.) 390 (B.C.), refd to. [para. 121].

Metro Transit Operating Co. v. Indepen­dent Canadian Transit Union, Local 3 (1983), 83 C.L.L.C. 16,054 (B.C.L.R.B.), refd to. [para. 121].

United Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America v. Domglas Ltd. (1978), 85 D.L.R.(3d) 118 (Ont. Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 121].

British Broadcasting Corp. v. Hearn, [1978] 1 All E.R. 111 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

Mercury Communications Ltd. v. Scott Garner and Post Office Engineering Union, [1984] 1 All E.R. 179 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

Associated Newspapers Group Ltd. v. Flynn (1970), 10 K.I.R. 17 (Ch. D.), refd to. [para. 122].

Luce v. Bexley London Borough Council, [1990] I.R.L.R. 422 (E.A.T.), refd to. [para. 122].

Québecair/Air Québec (1987), 72 di 44, refd to. [para. 124].

Wardair Canada Inc. (1988), 76 di 103, refd to. [para. 124].

Cadillac Fairview Corp. and T.E.C. Lease­holds Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union AFL-CIO-CLC et al. (1989), 36 O.A.C. 179; 71 O.R.(2d) 206 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 124].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians (1973), 4 L.A.C.(2d) 263 (Ont.), refd to. [para. 134].

Statutes Noticed:

Broadcasting Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-9, sect. 3(c), sect. 3(d), sect. 3(g)(i) [para. 51].

Canada Labour Code - see Labour Code.

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 18.1(4)(c) [para. 48].

Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, sect. 8(1) [para. 8]; sect. 18 [para. 41]; sect. 22, sect. 94(1)(a), sect. 94(3)(a), sect. 94(3)(b), sect. 94(3)(e), sect. 96 [para. 8]; sect. 97(1), sect. 98(1) [para. 41]; sect. 98(4) [para. 8]; sect. 99 [para. 41].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Adams, George W., Canadian Labour Law (2nd Ed. 1993), para. 10-640 [para. 120].

Arthurs, Harry William et al., Labour Law and Industrial Relations in Canada (4th Ed. 1993), pp. 272, 297 [para. 120].

Bryden, Philip L., Administrative Law - Review for Jurisdictional Error - Labour Board Decision Held to be Patently Unreasonable: United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Pipefitting Industry v. W.W. Lester (1978) Ltd. (1992), 71 Can. Bar Rev. 580, p. 585 [para. 69].

Citrine's Trade Union Law (3rd Ed. 1967), p. 620 [para. 122].

Gall, Peter A., Judicial Review of Labour Tribunals: A Functional Approach, in the 1979 Proceedings of the Administrative Law Conference (1981), 305, pp. 333-336 [para. 46].

Lynch, Charles, Free trade: Foes are alive and well and working for the CBC, Ottawa Citizen and Vancouver Province, Nov. 1988, generally [para. 5].

MacLauchlan, H. Wade, Reconciling Curial Deference with a Functional Approach in Substantive and Procedural Judicial Review (1993), 7 C.J.A.L.P. 1, generally [para. 28].

Sweet & Maxwell's Encyclopedia of Employment Law (1992), vol. 2, para. 1-8419 [para. 122].

Weiler, Paul, Reconcilable Differences (1980), pp. 58-60 [para. 120]; 59 [para. 117].

Counsel:

Roy L. Heenan and Tom Brady, for the appellant;

Peter C. Engelmann and Johane Tremblay, for the respondent, Canada Labour Relations Board;

Paul J. Falzone and Aubrey E. Golden, Q.C., for the respondents, Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists and Dale Goldhawk.

Solicitors of Record:

Heenan Blaikie, Montréal, Québec, for the appellant;

Caroline, Engelmann, Gottheil & Lynk, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, Canada Labour Relations Board;

Pollit, Arnold, MacLean, Toronto, Ontario and Golden, Green & Chercover, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents, Alliance of Canadian Cin­ema, Television and Radio Artists and Dale Goldhawk.

This appeal was heard on March 14, 1994, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official lan­guages on January 27, 1995, when the fol­lowing opin­ions were filed:

Iacobucci, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., Cory and Major, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 87;

La Forest, J. - see paragraph 88;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. - see paragraphs 89 to 93;

Sopinka, J. - see paragraphs 94 to 98;

Gonthier, J. - see paragraph 99;

McLachlin, J., dissenting - see para­graphs 100 to 136.