Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (Que.) v. Quebec (Attorney General) et al., (2004) 321 N.R. 290 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and Fish, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 14, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2004), 321 N.R. 290 (SCC);2004 SCC 39;[2004] 2 SCR 185;15 Admin LR (4th) 1;49 CHRR 413;[2004] SCJ No 34 (QL);[2004] ACS no 34;240 DLR (4th) 577;131 ACWS (3d) 494

HRC v. Que. (A.G.) (2004), 321 N.R. 290 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2004] N.R. TBEd. JN.014

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, acting on behalf of Normand Morin, Jocelyne Fortin, Chantal Douesnard, Josée Thomassin, Claude Dufour et al. (appellants) v. Attorney General of Quebec, Centrale de l'enseignement du Québec, now Centrale des syndicats du Québec, and Fédération des syndicats de l'enseignement (respondents) and Canadian Human Rights Commission, Ontario Human Rights Commission, Quebec Human Rights Tribunal, Confédération des syndicats nationaux, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec and Canadian Union of Public Employees (interveners)

(29188; 2004 SCC 39; 2004 CSC 39)

Indexed As: Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (Que.) v. Quebec (Attorney General) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and Fish, JJ.

June 11, 2004.

Summary:

The province of Quebec and teachers' unions entered into a modification of a col­lective agreement, which provided that ex­perience acquired by teachers during the 1996-1997 school year would not be recog­nized toward their salary increments or seniority. This term only affected teachers who had not yet obtained the highest level of the pay scale (a minority group composed primarily of younger and less experienced teachers). The younger teachers argued that the term discriminated against them and vio­lated the equality guarantee in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The province, the school boards and the unions (the respondents) filed a motion asking the Human Rights Tribunal to decline jurisdic­tion on the ground that a labour arbitrator had exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute. The Tribunal rejected the argument. The respondents appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the dispute should be resolved by arbitration under the collective agreement. The Human Rights Commission appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Bastarache and Arbour, JJ.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Human Rights Tribunal.

Administrative Law - Topic 9003

Boards and tribunals - Jurisdiction - Gen­eral - Concurrent, overlapping or exclusive jurisdiction - The Supreme Court of Can­ada referred to three possible outcomes in determining the question of which of two possible tribunals should decide dis­putes that arise in the labour context where legislation appears to permit both to do so - The court stated that "The first possibility is to find jurisdiction over the dispute in both tribunals. This is called the 'con­current' jurisdiction model. On this model, any labour dispute could be brought before either the labour arbitrator or the courts or other tribunals. The second possibility is the 'overlapping' jurisdiction model. On this model, while labour tribunals consider traditional labour law issues, nothing ousts the jurisdiction of courts or other tribunals over matters that arise in the employment con­text, but fall outside traditional labour law issues. The third possibility is the 'exclusive' jurisdiction model. On this model, jurisdiction lies exclusively in either the labour arbitrator or in the alter­nate tribunal, but not in both." - Which model applied in a given situation de­pended on the governing legislation, as applied to the dispute viewed in its factual matrix - See paragraphs 7 to 10.

Civil Rights - Topic 7061

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - Jurisdiction - Gen­eral - The province and teachers' unions modified their collective agreement by providing that experience acquired by teachers during the 1996-1997 school year would not be recognized toward salary in­crements or seniority - This modification only affected teachers who had not ob­tained the highest level of the pay scale (mostly younger and less experienced teach­ers) - The younger teachers sought a declaration that the modification was dis­criminatory and violated the equality guar­antee (Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms) - The Supreme Court of Can­ada held that the Human Rights Tribu­nal had jurisdiction over the dispute - The court rejected the argument that a labour arbitrator had exclusive jurisdiction - "The dispute, viewed not formalistically but in its essential nature, engages matters which pertain more to alleged discrimination in the formation and validity of the agree­ment, than to its 'interpretation or appli­cation', which is the source of the arbitra­tor's jurisdiction under the [Quebec] Labour Code" - The court set out reasons why the teachers could not be faulted for taking their claim to the Human Rights Com­mission instead of asking their unions to grieve the alleged violations - See para­graphs 1 to 31.

Labour Law - Topic 7041

Industrial relations - Collective agreement -Enforcement - Arbitration - Jurisdiction or powers of arbitrator or board - The Su­preme Court of Canada rejected the posi­tion that there was a legal presumption of exclusive arbitral jurisdiction in Quebec - Rather, "the question in each case is whether the relevant legislation applied to the dispute at issue, taken in its full factual context, establishes that the labour arbitra­tor has exclusive jurisdiction over the dis­pute. This question suggests two related steps. The first step is to look at the rel­evant legislation and what it says about the arbitrator's jurisdiction. The second step is to look at the nature of the dispute, and see whether the legislation suggests it falls exclusively to the arbitrator. The second step is logically necessary since the ques­tion is whether the legislative mandate ap­plies to the particular dispute at issue. It facilitates a better fit between the tribunal and the dispute and helps 'to ensure that jur­isdictional issues are decided in a man­ner that is consistent with the statutory schemes governing the parties'" - The dis­pute's legal characterization (i.e., a tort claim, a human rights claim, or a labour contract claim) was not determinative - "The question is whether the dispute, viewed in its essential character and not formalistically, is one over which the legislature intended the arbitrator to have exclusive jurisdiction" - See paragraphs 14, 15 and 20.

Labour Law - Topic 7041

Industrial relations - Collective agreement -Enforcement - Arbitration - Jurisdiction or powers of arbitrator or board - [See Ad­ministrative Law - Topic 9003 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9659

Public service labour relations - Collective agreement - Civil action - Human rights claims - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7061 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9702

Public service labour relations - Collective agreement - Arbitration - Jurisdiction - [See Administrative Law - Topic 9003 , Civil Rights - Topic 7061 and first La­bour Law - Topic 7041 ].

Cases Noticed:

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, appld. [paras. 7, 34].

Goudie et al. v. Ottawa (City), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 141; 301 N.R. 201; 170 O.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 141, refd to. [paras. 11, 59].

Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 495; 198 N.R. 161; 78 B.C.A.C. 162; 128 W.A.C. 162, refd to. [para. 11].

Regina Police Association Inc. and Shotton v. Board of Police Commissioners of Regina, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 360; 251 N.R. 16; 189 Sask.R. 23; 216 W.A.C. 23; 2000 SCC 14, refd to. [paras. 15, 43].

Wainright v. Vancouver Shipyards Co. (1987), 38 D.L.R.(4th) 760 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Johnston et al. v. Dresser Industries Canada Ltd. (1990), 36 O.A.C. 371; 75 O.R.(2d) 609 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Social Services Administration Board (Parry Sound District) v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 324 et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 157; 308 N.R. 271; 177 O.A.C. 235; 2003 SCC 42, refd to. [paras. 25, 65].

Human Rights Commission (Ont.) and Naraine v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd. et al. (2001), 158 O.A.C. 380; 209 D.L.R.(4th) 465 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [2002] 3 S.C.R. x; 302 N.R. 395; 172 O.A.C. 398, refd to. [para. 28].

New Brunswick v. O'Leary, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 967; 183 N.R. 229; 163 N.B.R.(2d) 97; 419 A.P.R. 97, refd to. [para. 43].

Allen et al. v. Alberta et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 128; 301 N.R. 174; 327 A.R. 1; 296 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 43].

St. Anne Nackawic Pulp & Paper Co. v. Canadian Paper Workers Union, Local 219, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 704; 68 N.R. 112; 73 N.B.R.(2d) 236; 184 A.P.R. 236, refd to. [para. 44].

Gendron v. Supply and Services Union of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Local 50057 et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1298; 109 N.R. 321; 66 Man.R.(2d) 81, refd to. [para. 49].

Latulippe v. Commission scolaire de la Jeune-Lorette, [2001] R.J.D.T. 26, refd to. [para. 51].

Mayville v. Union canadienne des travail­leurs en communication (unité 4), [2001] Q.J. No. 366, refd to. [para. 51].

Corporation municipale de la Ville de Gaspé v. Côté, [1996] R.D.J. 142, refd to. [para. 51].

Leroux v. Centre hospitalier Ste-Jeanne d'Arc, [1998] R.J.D.T. 554, refd to. [para. 51].

Collège Dawson v. Muzaula, [1999] R.J.D.T. 1041, refd to. [para. 51].

Furlong v. Résidence Christophe-Colomb, [1995] R.D.J. 162, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc. et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 575; 279 N.R. 345; 154 O.A.C. 345; 2001 SCC 81, refd to. [para. 67].

Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières v. St-Pierre, J.E. 97-1309 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

Hydro-Québec v. Tremblay, J.E. 2001-200 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

Section locale 2995 du Syndicat canadien des communications, de l'énergie et du papier v. Spreitzer, [2002] R.J.Q. 111 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

Centre d'hébergement et de soins de longue durée Champlain-Manoir de Verdun v. Québec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse), [1998] Q.J. No. 3250 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 67].

Syndicat des postiers du Canada v. Société canadienne des postes, [1995] R.J.Q. 2404, refd to. [para. 67].

Board of Education of Toronto v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation District 15 et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 487; 208 N.R. 245; 98 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 68].

Blanchard v. Control Data Canada Ltd., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 476; 55 N.R. 194, refd to. [para. 68].

Workers' Compensation Board (N.S.) v. Martin et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504; 310 N.R. 22; 217 N.S.R.(2d) 301; 683 A.P.R. 301; 2003 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 69].

Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Association v. Douglas College, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570; 118 N.R. 340, refd to. [para. 69].

St. Jacques v. Fédération des employées et employés de services public Inc. (C.S.N.) et al., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 345; 198 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 76].

Statutes Noticed:

Labour Code, R.S.Q., c. C-27, sect. 1(f), sect. 100 [paras. 16, 47].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brun, Henri, and Tremblay, Guy, Droit Constitutionnel (4th Ed. 2002), pp. 991 [para. 18]; 992 [para. 19].

Nadeau, Denis, Le Tribunal des droits de la personne du Quebec et le principe de l'exclusivité de l'arbitrage de grief ou l'histoire d'une usurpation progressive de compétence (2000), 60 R. du B. 387, pp. 398 [para. 56]; 402 to 405 [para. 63].

Counsel:

Pierre-Yves Bourdeau and Christian Baillargeon, for the appellant;

Patrice Claude and Mario Normandin, for the respondent, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Robert P. Gagnon and Pierre Brun, for the respondents, Centrale de l'enseignement du Quebec, now Centrale des syndicats du Québec, and Fédération des syndicats de l'enseignement;

Andrea Wright, for the intervener, Cana­dian Human Rights Commission;

Anthony D. Griffin, for the intervener, Ontario Human Rights Commission;

Written submissions only by Louise Cadieux and Dominique Pilon, for the intervener, Quebec Human Rights Tribu­nal;

Written submissions only by Lise Lanno and Gérard Notebaert, for the intervener Confédération des syndicats nationaux;

Written submissions only by Gaston Nadeau and Jean-Pierre Néron, for the intervener, Fédération des travailleurs de Québec;

Written submissions only by Ronald Cloutier and Louise Valiquette, for the intervener Canadian Union of Public Employees.

Solicitors of Record:

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, Montreal, Que­bec, for the appellant;

Bernard, Roy & Associés, Montreal, Que­bec, for the respondent, Attorney General of Quebec;

Grondin, Poudrier, Bernier, Quebec, for the respondents, Centrale de l'enseigne­ment du Québec, now Centrale des syn­dicats du Québec, and Fédération des syndicats de l'enseignement;

Canadian Human Rights Commission, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, Ca­nadian Human Rights Commission;

Ontario Human Rights Commission, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, Ontario Human Rights Commission;

Lafortune, Leduc, Montreal, Quebec, for the intervener, Quebec Human Rights Tribunal;

Confédération des syndicats nationaux, Montreal, Quebec, for the intervener, Conféderation des syndicats nationaux;

Trudel Nadeau Avocats, Montréal, Quebec, for the intervener, Fédération des travail­leurs et travailleuses du Québec;

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Montréal, Quebec, for the intervener, Canadian Union of Public Employees.

This appeal was heard on October 14, 2003, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and Fish, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, was delivered in both official languages on June 11, 2004, and the following opinions were filed:

McLachlin, C.J.C. (Iacobucci, Major, Binnie and Fish, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 31;

Bastarache, J., dissenting (Arbour, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 32 to 78.