Mounted Police Association of Ontario et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2015) 328 O.A.C. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 18, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2015), 328 O.A.C. 1 (SCC);2015 SCC 1;380 DLR (4th) 1;[2015] 1 SCR 3

Mounted Police Assoc. v. Can. (A.G.) (2015), 328 O.A.C. 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]

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

Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. JA.044

Mounted Police Association of Ontario and British Columbia Mounted Police Professional Association, on their own behalf and on behalf of all members and employees of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (appellants) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent) and Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of British Columbia, Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Attorney General of Alberta, Association des membres de la Police Montée du Québec Inc., Mounted Police Members' Legal Fund, Confédération des syndicats nationaux, Canadian Police Association, Canadian Labour Congress, Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Public Service Alliance of Canada and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (interveners)

(34948; 2015 SCC 1; 2015 CSC 1)

Indexed As: Mounted Police Association of Ontario et al. v. Canada (Attorney General)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ.

January 16, 2015.

Summary:

Two police associations, on behalf of their members, commenced a Charter application, challenging the validity of certain provisions governing the labour relations regime for members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). The associations sought a declaration, inter alia, that s. 2(1)(d) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act (Can.) (PSLRA), and s. 96 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations (Regulations), infringed s. 2(d) the Charter (i.e., the freedom of association). Section 2(1)(d) of the PSLRA excluded RCMP members from the labour relations scheme that enabled most federal public service employees to engage in collective bargaining with management. The RCMP members had a separate employee relations scheme, the Staff Relations Representative Program (SRRP), established by s. 96 of the Regulations.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported [2009] O.T.C. Uned. 808, found that s. 96 of the Regulations infringed s. 2(d) of the Charter and that the infringement could not be justified under s. 1. The Attorney General of Canada appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 292 O.A.C. 292, allowed the Attorney General's appeal and set aside the application judge's declaration that s. 96 of the Regulations violated the s. 2(d) rights of RCMP members. The exclusion of RCMP members from the PSLRA did not violate s. 2(d) of the Charter. The police associations appealed, arguing that both s. 96 of the RCMP Regulations and s. 2(1)(d) of the PSLRA violated the freedom of association.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Rothstein, J., dissenting, allowed the appeal. The court found that s. 96 of the RCMP Regulations which was in effect at the time of the hearing of the appeal, and the exclusion of RCMP members from collective bargaining under s. 2(1)(d) of the PSLRA infringed s. 2(d) of the Charter and neither infringement was justified under s. 1 of the Charter. As a remedy, the court struck down the offending provision of the PSLRA under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and would have struck down s. 96 of the RCMP Regulations, had it not been repealed. The declaration of invalidity was suspended for 12 months.

Civil Rights - Topic 2100

Freedom of association - General - The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the nature and interpretation of the right to freedom of association as guaranteed by s. 2(d) of the Charter and particularly in the labour relations context - The court discussed the evolution of s. 2(d) jurisprudence toward a purposive and contextual approach - The court stated that "In summary, after an initial period of reluctance to embrace the full import of the freedom of association guarantee in the field of labour relations, the jurisprudence has evolved to affirm a generous approach to that guarantee. This approach is centred on the purpose of encouraging the individual's self-fulfillment and the collective realization of human goals, consistent with democratic values, as informed by 'the historical origins of the concepts enshrined' in s. 2(d): R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, at p. 344" - See paragraphs 30 to 47.

Civil Rights - Topic 2103

Freedom of association - General - Scope of right - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the "purposive, generous and contextual" approach to defining the scope of s. 2(d) of the Charter (i.e., freedom of association) - See paragraphs 47 to 50 - The court stated, inter alia, that "As is the case with other Charter rights, the jurisprudence establishes that s. 2(d) must be interpreted in a purposive and generous fashion, having regard to 'the larger objects of the Charter ..., to the language chosen to articulate the ... freedom, to the historical origins of the concepts enshrined, and where applicable, to the meaning and purpose of the other specific rights and freedoms with which it is associated within the text of the Charter' ... In a phrase, in order to determine whether a restriction on the right to associate violates s. 2(d) by offending its purpose, we must look at the associational activity in question in its full context and history. Neither the text of s. 2(d) nor general principles of Charter interpretation support a narrow reading of freedom of association" - See paragraph 47.

Civil Rights - Topic 2103

Freedom of association - General - Scope of right - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the content of s. 2(d) protection in defining the scope of freedom of association under the Charter - The court concluded that s. 2(d) protected each of the aspects of freedom of association relating to three possible approaches to the interpretation of s. 2(d) (i.e., constitutive, derivative and purposive) - The "constitutive" approach would protect only the bare right to belong to or form an association - The "derivative" approach would protect not only the right to associate, but also the right to associational activity that specifically related to other constitutional freedoms - The "purposive" approach, defined the content of s. 2(d) by reference to the purpose of the guarantee of freedom of association (i.e., to recognize the profoundly social nature of human endeavours and to protect the individual from state-enforced isolation in the pursuit of his or her ends) - The purposive approach thus recognized that the freedom of association was empowering - The purposive interpretation of s. 2(d) conferred prima facie protection on a broad range of associational activity, subject to limits justified under s. 1 of the Charter - Associational rights protected by s. 2(d) were not merely a bundle of individual rights, but collective rights that inhered in associations - See paragraphs 51 to 66.

Civil Rights - Topic 2103

Freedom of association - General - Scope of right - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the content of s. 2(d) protection in defining the scope of freedom of association under the Charter - The court stated that "In summary, s. 2(d), viewed purposively, protects three classes of activities: (1) the right to join with others and form associations; (2) the right to join with others in the pursuit of other constitutional rights; and (3) the right to join with others to meet on more equal terms the power and strength of other groups or entities" - See paragraph 66.

Civil Rights - Topic 2103

Freedom of association - General - Scope of right - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that applying the purposive approach "to the domain of labour relations, we conclude that s. 2(d) [of the Charter] guarantees the right of employees to meaningfully associate in the pursuit of collective workplace goals, affirming the central holdings of Health Services [2007 SCC] and Fraser [2011 SCC]. This guarantee includes a right to collective bargaining. However, that right is one that guarantees a process rather than an outcome or access to a particular model of labour relations. Just as a ban on employee association impairs freedom of association, so does a labour relations process that substantially interferes with the possibility of having meaningful collective negotiations on workplace matters. Without the right to pursue workplace goals collectively, workers may be left essentially powerless in dealing with their employer or influencing their employment conditions ..." - See paragraphs 67 and 68 - The court elaborated on the right to a meaningful collective bargaining process - See paragraphs 69 to 80.

Civil Rights - Topic 2103

Freedom of association - General - Scope of right - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 2(d) of the Charter (i.e., the right to freedom of association), protected the right of employees to associate for the purpose of meaningfully pursuing collective workplace goals - The government, therefore, could not enact laws or impose a labour relations process that substantially interfered with that right - The court discussed what were the features essential to a meaningful process of collective bargaining under s. 2(d) - The court concluded that a meaningful process of collective bargaining was a process that provided employees with a degree of employee "choice and independence" from management sufficient to enable them to determine their collective interests and meaningfully pursue them - The court elaborated on the notions of "choice and independence" and the practical implications of choice and independence for labour relations models - See paragraphs 81 to 104.

Civil Rights - Topic 2103

Freedom of association - General - Scope of right - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 2(d) of the Charter (i.e., the right to freedom of association), protected the right of employees to associate for the purpose of meaningfully pursuing collective workplace goals - The court stated that "... meaningful process of collective bargaining is a process that gives employees meaningful input into the selection of their collective goals, and a degree of independence from management sufficient to allow members to control the activities of the association, having regard to the industry and workplace in question. A labour relations scheme that complies with these requirements and thus allows collective bargaining to be pursued in a meaningful way satisfies s. 2(d)" - See paragraph 99.

Civil Rights - Topic 2103

Freedom of association - General - Scope of right - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2100 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 2144.1

Freedom of association - Limitations on - Collective bargaining and employer or employee groups - Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) members were excluded from collective bargaining by s. 2(1) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act (PSLRA) - Rather, RCMP members were subject to a non-unionized labour relations regime through the Staff Relations Representative Program (SRRP) established under s. 96 (now s. 56) of the RCMP Regulations - The Supreme Court of Canada held that "... the s. 2(d) guarantee of freedom of association protects a meaningful process of collective bargaining that provides employees with a degree of choice and independence sufficient to enable them to determine and pursue their collective interests. The current RCMP labour relations regime denies RCMP members that choice, and imposes on them a scheme that does not permit them to identify and advance their workplace concerns free from management's influence. Accordingly, we ... find that s. 96 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, ... which was in effect at the time of the hearing of this appeal, is inconsistent with s. 2(d) of the Charter. We also find that the exclusion of RCMP members from collective bargaining under para. (d) of the definition of 'employee' in s. 2(1) of the PSLRA infringes s. 2(d) of the Charter. Neither infringement is justified under s. 1 of the Charter" - See paragraph 5 - The court elaborated on these findings - See paragraphs 107 to 158.

Civil Rights - Topic 2144.1

Freedom of association - Limitations on - Collective bargaining and employer or employee groups - Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) members were excluded from collective bargaining by s. 2(1) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act (PSLRA) - Rather, RCMP members were subject to a non-unionized labour relations regime through the Staff Relations Representative Program established under s. 96 of the RCMP Regulations - Previously the Supreme Court of Canada held that the exclusion of RCMP members from collective bargaining under the PSLRA's predecessor legislation did not infringe s. 2(d) (Delisle v. Canada - 1999) - The Supreme Court of Canada revisited the result in Delisle, noting that Delisle was decided before the Supreme Court's shift to a purposive and generous approach to the exercise of freedom of association and Delisle considered a different question and narrower aspects of the labour relations regime than those at issue in this case - See paragraphs 124 to 138.

Civil Rights - Topic 2144.1

Freedom of association - Limitations on - Collective bargaining and employer or employee groups - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2100 and fourth, fifth and sixth Civil Rights - Topic 2103 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 2204

Freedom of association - Denial of right of - What constitutes - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 2144.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (s. 1) - Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) members were excluded from collective bargaining by s. 2(1) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act (PSLRA) - Rather, RCMP members were subject to a non-unionized labour relations regime through the Staff Relations Representative Program (SRRP) established under s. 96 of the RCMP Regulations - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 96 of the RCMP Regulations which was in effect at the time of the hearing of the appeal, and the exclusion of RCMP members from collective bargaining under s. 2(1)(d) of the PSLRA infringed s. 2(d) of the Charter and neither infringement was justified under s. 1 of the Charter - See paragraphs 139 to 153.

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.2

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Declaration of statute invalidity - Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) members were excluded from collective bargaining by s. 2(1) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act (PSLRA) - Rather, RCMP members were subject to a non-unionized labour relations regime through the Staff Relations Representative Program (SRRP) established under s. 96 of the RCMP Regulations - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 96 of the RCMP Regulations which was in effect at the time of the hearing of the appeal, and the exclusion of RCMP members from collective bargaining under s. 2(1)(d) of the PSLRA infringed s. 2(d) of the Charter and neither infringement was justified under s. 1 of the Charter - As a remedy the court struck down the offending provision of the PSLRA under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and would have struck down s. 96 of the RCMP Regulations, had it not been repealed - The declaration of invalidity was suspended for 12 months - See paragraphs 154 to 156.

Courts - Topic 79

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - Prior decisions of same court - Supreme Court of Canada - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 2144.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

Health Services and Support - Facilities Subsector Bargaining Association et al. v. British Columbia, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 391; 363 N.R. 226; 242 B.C.A.C. 1; 400 W.A.C. 1; 2007 SCC 27, refd to. [paras. 1, 164].

Fraser et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General), [2011] 2 S.C.R. 3; 415 N.R. 200; 275 O.A.C. 205; 2011 SCC 20, refd to. [paras. 1, 164].

Delisle v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 989; 244 N.R. 33, overruled [paras. 3, 193].

Meredith et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2015), 466 N.R. 338; 2015 SCC 2, refd to. [paras. 4, 224].

Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ont.) v. Ontario (Minister of Public Safety and Security), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 815; 402 N.R. 350; 262 O.A.C. 258; 2010 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 27].

Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; 74 N.R. 99; 78 A.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 31, 211].

Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.) - see Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration.

Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 424; 75 N.R. 161, refd to. [paras. 31, 211].

Retail, Wholesale, Department Store Union, Locals 544, 496, 635 and 955 et al. v. Saskatchewan et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 460; 74 N.R. 321; 56 Sask.R. 277, refd to. [paras. 31, 211].

Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada v. Northwest Territories (Commissioner) et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 367; 112 N.R. 269, refd to. [para. 37].

Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Pineview Poultry Products Ltd. et al., [1998] 3 S.C.R. 157; 231 N.R. 201; 223 A.R. 201; 183 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 41].

Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Richardson - see Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Pineview Poultry Products et al.

Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees' Union et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211; 126 N.R. 161; 48 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [paras. 42, 183].

R. v. Advance Cutting and Coring Ltd. et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 209; 276 N.R. 1; 2001 SCC 70, refd to. [paras. 42, 183].

Bernard v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2014] 1 S.C.R. 227; 453 N.R. 334; 2014 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 42].

Dunmore et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 1016; 279 N.R. 201; 154 O.A.C. 201; 2001 SCC 94, refd to. [paras. 43, 211].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, refd to. [paras. 46, 160].

Whatcott v. Human Rights Tribunal (Sask.) et al., [2013] 1 S.C.R. 467; 441 N.R. 1; 409 Sask.R. 75; 568 W.A.C. 75; 2013 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81, refd to. [para. 48].

Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3; 281 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 1, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. National Post et al., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 477; 401 N.R. 104; 2010 SCC 16, refd to. [para. 64].

Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) et al., [2002] 3 S.C.R. 519; 294 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 68, refd to. [para. 64].

Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony et al. v. Alberta, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 567; 390 N.R. 202; 460 A.R. 1; 462 W.A.C. 1; 2009 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 64].

Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia v. Moldova, No. 45701/99, ECHR 2001-XII, refd to. [para. 64].

Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich (1976), 426 U.S. 696, refd to. [para. 64].

National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937), 301 U.S. 1, refd to. [para. 68].

United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401 v. Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al., [2013] 3 S.C.R. 733; 451 N.R. 253; 561 A.R. 359; 594 W.A.C. 359; 2013 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 69].

MiningWatch Canada v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) et al., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 6; 397 N.R. 232; 2010 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 113].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311; 164 N.R. 1; 60 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 113].

Minister of National Revenue v. Craig, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 489; 433 N.R. 111; 2012 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 127].

Bedford et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1101; 452 N.R. 1; 312 O.A.C. 53; 2013 SCC 72, refd to. [paras. 127, 212].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 139].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 139, 259].

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium et al. v. Canada (Minister of Justice) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 263 N.R. 203; 145 B.C.A.C. 1; 237 W.A.C. 1; 2000 SCC 69, refd to. [paras. 143, 258].

JTI-Macdonald Corp. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2007] 2 S.C.R. 610; 364 N.R. 89; 2007 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 143, 258].

Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827; 320 N.R. 49; 348 A.R. 201; 321 W.A.C. 201; 2004 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 144].

Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825; 195 N.R. 81; 171 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 437 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [paras. 144, 259].

Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15 - see Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al.

Divito v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al., [2013] 3 S.C.R. 157; 448 N.R. 71; 2013 SCC 47, refd to. [para. 160].

Gagnon v. Canadian Merchant Service Guild and Laurentian Pilotage Authority, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 509; 53 N.R. 100, refd to. [para. 186].

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. 186].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 139]; sect. 2(d) [para. 1 et seq.].

Public Service Labour Relations Act, S.C. 1966-67, c. 72, sect. 2(1)(d) [para. 122].

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act Regulations (Can.), Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, SOR/88-361, sect. 96 [para. 10].

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act Regulations (Can.), Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, SOR/2014-281, sect. 56, sect. 58 [para. 5, footnote 1].

Wagner Act (National Labor Relations Act) (1935), 49 Stat. 449, generally [paras. 94 and 196].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Adams, George W., Canadian Labour Law (2nd Ed. 1993), (2014 Looseleaf Update, Release 50), paras. 1.290 to 1.340 [para. 96]; 2.3800 to 2.4030 [para. 94].

Adams, Roy, J., A Pernicious Euphoria: 50 Years of Wagnerism in Canada (1995), 3 C.L.E.L.J. 321, pp. 328 [para. 199]; 342 to 345, 344 to 345 [para. 206].

Adams, Roy, J., Public Employment Relations: Canadian Developments in Perspective, in Swimmer, Gene, Public-Sector Labour Relations in an Era of Restraint and Restructuring (2001), p. 221 [para. 206].

Anderson, John C., and Kochan, Thomas A., Collective Bargaining in the Public Service of Canada (1977), 32 I.R. 234, p. 234 [para. 133].

Bogg, Alan, and Keith Ewing, A (Muted) Voice at Work? Collective Bargaining in the Supreme Court of Canada (2012), 33 Comp. Lab. L. & Poly J. 379, p. 405 [para. 87].

Brown Report - see Canada, Rebuilding the Trust: Report of the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP (Brown Report) (2007).

Brun, Henri, Tremblay, Guy, and Brouillet, Eugenie, Droit constitutionnel (5th Ed. 2008), p. 1060 [para. 48].

Burkett, Brian W., The Future of the Wagner Act: A Canadian-American Comparison (2013), 38 Queen's L.J. 363, generally [para. 96].

Canada, A Matter of Trust: Report of the Independent Investigator into Matters Relating to RCMP Pension and Insurance Plans (2007), generally [para. 114].

Canada, Advisory Committee on Labour Management Relations in the Federal Public Service, Working Together in the Public Interest (2001), p. 14 [para. 133].

Canada, Canadian Industrial Relations: The Report of the Task Force on Labour Relations (Woods Report) (1969), para. 440 [para. 18].

Canada, Rebuilding the Trust: Report of the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP (Brown Report) (2007), generally [para. 114]; pp. 33, 34 [para. 115].

Canada, Report of the Preparatory Committee on Collective Bargaining in the Public Service (Heeney Report) (1965), p. 27 [para. 18].

Caron, Renee, Employment in the Federal Public Service (2001) (2009 Looseleaf Update, Release 5), para. 1:200 [para. 133].

Carpenter, Dale, Expressive Assocation and Anti-Discrimination Law After Dale: A Tripartite Approach (2001), 85 Minn. L. Rev. 1515, generally [para. 56].

Carter, Donald D., et al., Labour Law in Canada (5th Ed. 2002), pp. 286 to 287 [para. 94].

Coutu, Michel, et al., Droit des rapports collectifs du travail au Quebec (2nd Ed. 2013), vol. 1, para. 98 [para. 98].

Davies, Paul, and Freedland, Mark, Kahn-Freund's Labour and the Law (3rd Ed. 1983), p. 200 [para. 86].

Doorey, David J., Graduated Freedom of Association: Worker Voice Beyond the Wagner Model (2013), 38 Queen's L.J. 511, generally [para. 96].

Dorsey, James E., Individuals and Internal Union Affairs: The Right to Participate, in Swan, Kenneth P., and Swindon, Katherine E., Studies in Labour Law (1983), pp. 193 [para. 85]; 195, 219 [para. 92].

Faraday, Fay, Fudge, Judy, and Tucker, Eric, Constitutional Labour Rights in Canada: Farm Workers and the Fraser Case (2012), p. 17 [para. 92].

Forcese, Dennis, Police Unionism: Employee-Management Relations in Canadian Police Forces (1980), 4 Can. Police College J. 79, p. 120 [para. 147].

Fudge, Judy, Freedom of Association, in Mendes, Errol, and Beaulac, Stephane, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (5th Ed. 2013), pp. 527 to 528 [para. 30].

Fudge, Judy, Introduction: Farm Workers, Collective Bargaining Rights, and the Meaning of Constitutional Protection, in Faraday, Fay, Fudge, Judy, and Tucker, Eric, Constitutional Labour Rights in Canada: Farm Workers and the Fraser Case (2012), p. 17 [para. 92].

Gilliland, Ryder, The Charter at Thirty (2012), p. 1 [para. 48].

Hardy, J. Fred, and Ponak, Allen, Staff Relations in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (1983), 12 J. Collective Negotiations 87, pp. 89 [para. 146]; 89 to 90 [para. 19].

Heeney Report - see Canada, Report of the Preparatory Committee on Collective Bargaining in the Public Service (Heeney Report) (1965).

Inazu, John D., Liberty's Refuge: The Forgotten Freedom of Assembly (2012), p. 45 [para. 56].

Kaufman, Bruce E., Accomplishments and Shortcomings of Nonunion Employee Representation in the Pre-Wagner Act Years: A Reassessment, in Kaufman, Bruce E., and Taras, Daphne Gottlieb, Nonunion Employee Representation: History, Contemporary Practice, and Policy (2000), p. 26 [para. 198].

Kaufman, Bruce E., and Taras, Daphne Gottlieb, Nonunion Employee Representation: History, Contemporary Practice, and Policy (2000), pp. 26 [para. 198]; 97 [para. 197].

MacDowell, Laurel Sefton, Company Unionism in Canada, 1915-1948, in Kaufman, Bruce E., and Taras, Daphne Gottlieb, Nonunion Employee Representation: History, Contemporary Practice, and Policy (2000), p. 97 [para. 197].

MacKay, Robin, The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Unionization (2003), p. 20 [para. 135].

Mendes, Errol, and Beaulac, Stephane, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (5th Ed. 2013), pp. 339 [para. 48]; 527 to 528 [para. 30].

Middleton, J.P., A Study Report on Police Associations (1974), p. i [para. 108].

Moon, Richard, Freedom of Conscience and Religion, in Mendes, Errol, and Beaulac, Stephane, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (5th Ed. 2013), p. 339 [para. 48].

Murray, Gregor, and Verge, Pierre, La representation syndicale: Visage juridique actuel et future (1999), pp. 2 to 3 [para. 92].

Rootham, Christopher, Labour and Employment Law in the Federal Public Service (2007), pp. 19 to 20 [para. 123]; 37 [para. 133].

Royal Canadian Mounted Police, SRR Challenge 2000 Review: Final Report (2003), pp. 10 to 11 [para. 19]; 29 to 32 [para. 22].

Schabas, Paul B., The Ups and Downs of Freedom of Expression - Section 2(b), in Gilliland, Ryder, The Charter at Thirty (2012), p. 1 [para. 48].

Swan, Kenneth P., and Swindon, Katherine E., Studies in Labour Law (1983), pp. 193 [para. 85]; 195, 219 [para. 92].

Swimmer, Gene, Public-Sector Labour Relations in an Era of Restraint and Restructuring (2001), p. 221 [para. 206].

Taras, Daphne Gottlieb, Reconciling Differences Differently: Employee Voice in Public Policymaking and Workplace Governance (2007), 28 Comp. Lab. L. & Poly J. 167, generally [para. 96].

Taras, Daphne Gottlieb, Why Nonunion Representation Is Legal in Canada (1997), 52 R.I. 763, generally [para. 197].

United States of America, National Labour Relations Board, Legislative History of the National Labor Relations Act 1935 (1949), vol. 1, p. 313 [para. 223].

Verge, Pierre, Trudeau, Gilles, and Vallee, Guylaine, Le droit du travail par ses sources (2006), pp. 41 to 42 [para. 94].

Walzer, Michael, The Concept of Civil Society, in Walzer, Michael, Toward a Global Civil Society (1995), p. 20 [para. 56].

Walzer, Michael, Toward a Global Civil Society (1995), p. 20 [para. 56].

Wellington, Harry H., Labour and the Legal Process (1968), p. 129 [para. 92].

Woods Report - see Canada, Canadian Industrial Relations: The Report of the Task Force on Labour Relations (Woods Report) (1969).

Counsel:

Laura C. Young and Patric Senson, for the appellants;

Peter Southey, Donnaree Nygard and Kathryn Hucal, for the respondent;

Robin K. Basu and Michael Dunn, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Ontario;

Jonathan Penner, Keith Evans and Karen Horsman, for the intervener, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Graeme G. Mitchell, Q.C., for the intervener, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan;

Roderick S. Wiltshire, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Alberta;

James R. K. Duggan and Alexander H. Duggan, for the intervener, Association des membres de la Police Montée du Québec Inc.;

John D. R. Craig and Christopher D. Pigott, for the intervener, the Mounted Police Members' Legal Fund;

Benoit Laurin and Éric Lévesque, for the intervener, Confédération des syndicats nationaux;

Ian J. Roland and Michael Fenrick, for the intervener, the Canadian Police Association;

Steven Barrett and Ethan Poskanzer, for the intervener, the Canadian Labour Congress;

Ranjan K. Agarwal and Ashley L. Paterson, for the intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Andrew Raven, Andrew Astritis and Morgan Rowe, for the intervener, the Public Service Alliance of Canada;

Lindsay M. Lyster, for the intervener, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

Solicitors of Record:

Laura Young Law Offices, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellants;

Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent;

Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Ontario;

Attorney General of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervener, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan;

Attorney General of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Alberta;

Duggan avocats, Montreal, Quebec, for the intervener, Association des membres de la Police Montée du Québec Inc.;

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Mounted Police Members' Legal Fund;

Laroche Martin, Montreal, Quebec, for the intervener, Confédération des syndicats nationaux;

Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Police Association;

Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Labour Congress;

Bennett Jones, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, the Public Service Alliance of Canada;

Moore, Edgar, Lyster, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervener, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

This appeal was heard on February 18, 2014, before McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on January 16, 2015, including the following opinions:

McLachlin, C.J.C., and LeBel, J. (Abella, Cromwell, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 158;

Rothstein, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 159 to 270.