Plourde v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp., (2009) 396 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 21, 2009
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2009), 396 N.R. 1 (SCC);2009 SCC 54

Plourde v. Wal-Mart Can. Corp. (2009), 396 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]

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

Temp. Cite: [2009] N.R. TBEd. NO.048

Gaétan Plourde (appellant) v. Wal-Mart Canada Corporation (respondent) and Commission des relations du travail, Alliance of Manufacturers & Exporters Canada, also known as Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, Fédération des travailleurs du Québec (FTQ), Coalition of BC Businesses, Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Conseil du patronat du Québec and Canadian Labour Congress (intervenors)

(32342; 2009 SCC 54; 2009 CSC 54)

Indexed As: Plourde v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ.

November 27, 2009.

Summary:

The employees of Wal-Mart's Jonquière store unionized. Negotiations to conclude a first collective agreement were unsuccessful. On February 9, 2005, the Quebec Minister of Labour appointed an arbitrator to resolve the outstanding differences. On the same day, Wal-Mart closed its Jonquière store. All of the employees were dismissed. One of them, Plourde, filed a complaint under s. 16 of the Labour Code (Que.). He sought reinstatement.

The Commission des relations du travail (Que.), in a decision reported 2006 QCCRT 207, dismissed the complaint. Plourde applied for judicial review.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision reported 2007 QCCS 3165, dismissed the application. Plourde applied for leave to appeal.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 2007 QCCA 1210, dismissed the application. Plourde appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Abella, LeBel and Cromwell, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Labour Law - Topic 3544

Unions - Unfair labour practices - By employer - Interference with or dismissal of employee exercising labour rights - Section 16 of the Labour Code (Que.) provided a complaint remedy for employees alleging that they were the victim of a sanction or action referred to in s. 15 for having exercised a right arising from the Code - Section 17 provided that if it was shown that the employee exercised a right arising from the Code, there was a "simple presumption in his favour that the sanction was imposed on him or the action was taken against him because he exercised such right, and the burden of proof is upon the employer that he resorted to the sanction or action against the employee for good and sufficient reason" - In the present case, Wal-Mart closed its Jonquière store on the same day that an arbitrator was appointed to resolve differences resulting from the unsuccessful negotiations for a first collective agreement between Wal-Mart and its freshly unionized employees - All of the employees were dismissed - The store was emptied - The lease for the premises was rescinded - Employee Plourde filed a complaint under s. 16 - He sought reinstatement - The Commission des relations du travail (Que.) dismissed the complaint - After first ruling that the presumption in s. 17 applied and shifted the onus to Wal-Mart, the Commission found that Wal-Mart met the onus by showing that the store closure was genuine and permanent - Hence, the employments were terminated for "good and sufficient cause" under s. 17 - The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the decision - The appropriate remedies for employees and the union existed elsewhere under the Code, especially under ss. 12 to 14 relating to unfair labour practices - The court indicated that its earlier decision in Place des Arts (2004) did not stand "for the more sweeping proposition that closure wipes the employer's record clean and immunizes it from any financial consequences for associated unfair labour practices. Nor does it preclude a finding that the closure itself constitutes an unfair labour practice aimed at hindering the union or the employees from exercising rights under the Code" - See paragraphs 1 to 65.

Cases Noticed:

Boutin v. Wal-Mart Canada inc., 2005 QCCRT 225; 2005 QCCRT 269, refd to. [paras. 2, 72].

Pednault v. Compagnie Wal-Mart du Canada, [2005] J.Q. no 16222 (Sup. Ct.), consd. [para. 2]; refd to. [para. 72].

Pednault v. Compagnie Wal-Mart du Canada, [2006] R.J.Q. 1266; 2006 QCA 666, consd. [para. 2].

Travailleurs et travailleuses unis de l'alimentation et du commerce, section locale 503 v. Ménard, [2008] R.J.D.T. 138; 2007 QCCS 5704, refd to. [paras. 2, 72].

Lafrance et al. v. Commercial Photo Service Inc., Briere and Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 1819, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 536; 32 N.R. 46, consd. [para. 99]; refd to. [para. 6].

Fortin v. Hilton Quebec Ltd. and Labour Court, Briere and Roy, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 548; 33 N.R. 147, refd to. [para. 6].

City Buick Pontiac (Montréal) Inc. v. Roy, [1981] T.T. 22 (Que. Lab. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 6, 66].

International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, its Territories and Canada, Stage Local 56 v. Société de la Place des Arts de Montréal et al., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 43; 316 N.R. 244; 2004 SCC 2, refd to. [paras. 7, 115].

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, dist. [para. 7].

Asselin v. Lord, D.T.E. 85T-193; SOQUIJ AZ-85147041 (Que. Lab. Ct.), consd. [para. 26].

Syndicat des travailleurs en communication, électronique, électricité, techniciens et salariés du Canada (C.T.C.-F.T.Q.) v. Raffi Schwartz, [1986] T.T. 165 (Que. Lab. Ct.), refd to. [para. 27].

Bourget v. Matériaux B.G.B. ltée, D.T.E. 95T-1257; SOQUIJ AZ-95147099, refd to. [para. 27].

Syndicat des employés de la société chimique Laurentide Inc. v. Lambert, D.T.E. 85T-523; SOQUIJ AZ-85147077, refd to. [para. 27].

Teamsters - Conférence des communications graphiques, section locale 555 M v. Joncas Postexperts inc., 2008 QCCRT 249, refd to. [para. 27].

Section locale 175 du Syndicat canadien des communications, de l'énergie et du papier (SCEP) v. Petro-Canada, 2008 QCCRT 246, refd to. [para. 27].

Lagacé v. Laporte, [1983] T.T. 354 (Que. Lab. Ct.), refd to. [para. 27].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 34].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 34].

Dar v. Manufacturier de bas Iris inc., [2000] R.J.D.T. 1632 (Que. Lab. Ct.), refd to. [para. 35].

Bélanger v. Hydro-Québec, D.T.E. 86T-86; SOQUIJ AZ-86147016, refd to. [para. 36].

Produits Coq d'Or Ltée v. Lévesque, [1984] T.T. 73 (Que. Lab. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 36, 125].

T.A.S. Communications v. Thériault, [1985] T.T. 271 (Que. Lab. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 36, 125].

Altour Marketing Support Services Ltd. v. Perras, D.T.E. 83T-855; SOQUIJ AZ-83147158 (Que. Lab. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 37, 125].

Maresq et Brown Boveri (Canada) Ltd., Re, [1963] R.D.T. 242 (L.R.B.), consd. [paras. 42, 95].

Industrielle (L'), Compagnie d'assurance sur la vie v. Nadeau, [1978] T.T. 175 (Que. Lab. Ct.), refd to. [para. 43]; consd. [para. 88].

Société des Hôtels Méridien Canada Ltée v. Quebec (Tribunal du travail) (1980), 80 C.L.L.C. 14,026 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 43, 99].

Caya v. 1641-9749 Québec Inc., D.T.E. 85T-242; SOQUIJ AZ-85147051 (Que. Lab. Ct.), refd to. [para. 47].

Bérubé v. Groupe Samson Inc., D.T.E. 85T-932; SOQUIJ AZ-85147126 (Que. Lab. Ct.), refd to. [para. 47].

Ouellette v. Restaurants Scott Québec Ltée, D.T.E. 88T-546; SOQUIJ AZ-88147062 (Que. Lab. Ct.), refd to. [para. 47].

Enterprises Bérou inc. v. Arsenault, [1991] T.T. 312 (Que. Lab. Ct.), refd to. [para. 47].

Silva v. Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal - Pavillon Notre-Dame, [2007] R.J.D.T. 363 (Que. C.A.), consd. [para. 48]; refd to. [para. 100].

St-Hilaire v. Sûreté du Québec, 2003 QCCRT 559, consd. [para. 49].

Jalbert v. Sobeys Québec, 2007 QCCRT 608, refd to. [para. 49].

Arsenault v. C & D Aerospace inc., 2006 QCCRT 654, refd to. [para. 49].

Crawford Transport Inc. and Teamsters, Local 879, Re (2006), 146 C.L.R.B.R.(2d) 234 (C.I.R.B.), consd. [para. 52].

Pegasus Express Inc. and Teamsters, Local 880, Re (2006), 140 C.L.R.B.R.(2d) 77 (C.I.R.B.), refd to. [para. 53].

International Wallcoverings and Canadian Paperworkers Union, Re (1983), 4 C.L.R.B.R.(N.S.) 289 (Ont. L.R.B.), consd. [para. 59].

Plourde v. Compagnie Wal-Mart du Canada, 2006 QCCRT 159, refd to. [para. 72].

Bourgeois v. Compagnie Wal-Mart du Canada, 2005 QCCRT 502, refd to. [para. 73].

Compagnie Wal-Mart du Canada v. Commission des relations de travail, 2006 QCCS 3784, refd to. [para. 73].

Compagnie Wal-Mart du Canada v. Desbiens, 2008 QCCA 236, refd to. [para. 73].

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

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

Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 424; 75 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 74].

Retail, Wholesale and 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. [para. 74].

Côté v. Compagnie Wollworth (F.W.), [1978] R.L. 439 (Que. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 84].

Syndicat canadien des communications, de l'énergie et du papier, section locale 194 v. Disque Améric Inc., [1996] T.T. 451 (Que. Lab. Ct.), refd to. [para. 85].

Gauthier v. Sobeys Inc. (numéro 650), [1995] T.T. 131 (Que. Lab. Ct.), refd to. [para. 85].

United Last Co. v. Tribunal du travail, [1973] R.D.T. 423 (Que. C.A.), consd. [para. 89].

Syndicat des salariés de distribution de produits pharmaceutiques (F.I.S.A.) v. Medis, Services pharmaceutiques et de santé inc., [2000] R.J.D.T. 943 (Que. C.A.), consd. [para. 93].

Distinctive Leather Goods Ltd. v. Dubois, [1976] C.A. 648 (Que.), consd. [para. 98].

Hôpital Notre-Dame v. Chabot, D.T.E. 85T-258; SOQUIJ AZ-85147054 (Lab. Ct.), refd to. [para. 100].

Textile Workers Union of America v. Darlington Manufacturing Co. (1965), 380 U.S. 263 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 111].

National Bank of Canada and Retail Clerks' International Union, Re, [1982] 3 Can. L.R.B.R. 1, refd to. [para. 112].

Irving (J.D.) Ltd. and Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Re (2003), 94 C.L.R.B.R.(2d) 105 (N.B.L.E.B.), refd to. [para. 112].

Central Web Offset Ltd. and Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 255G, Re (2008), 155 C.L.R.B.R.(2d) 113 (Alta. L.R.B.), refd to. [para. 112].

Hunt Manufacturing Ltd. and United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local No. 170, Re, [1993] B.C.L.R.B.D. No. 291, refd to. [para. 112].

EF International Language Schools Inc., Re, [1997] B.C.L.R.B.D. No. 203, refd to. [para. 112].

874352 Ontario Ltd. (Comox District Free Press) and Graphic Communications International Union, Local 525M, Re (1995), 26 C.L.R.B.R.(2d) 209 (B.C.L.R.B.), refd to. [para. 112].

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 454 v. Westfair Foods Ltd., [1993] S.L.R.B.D. No. 2, refd to. [para. 112].

Academy of Medicine, Re, [1977] O.L.R.B. Rep. 783, refd to. [para. 112].

United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 504 v. Westinghouse Canada Inc. (1980), 80 C.L.L.C. 14,062 (Ont. L.R.B.), refd to. [para. 112].

Humber College of Applied Arts and Technology, Re, [1979] O.L.R.B. Rep. 520, refd to. [para. 112].

Doral Construction Ltd., Re, [1980] O.L.R.B. Rep. 693, refd to. [para. 112].

Houde v. Université Concordia, 2007 QCCRT 454, refd to. [para. 123].

Craig v. Université McGill (Office of Secretariat), 2007 QCCRT 278, refd to. [para. 123].

Dallaire v. Sûreté du Québec, 2007 QCCRT 74, refd to. [para. 123].

Desgagné v. Québec (Ministère de l'Emploi, de la Solidarité sociale et de la Famille), 2005 QCCRT 351, refd to. [para. 123].

Ouimet v. Solotech location inc., 2005 QCCRT 180, refd to. [para. 123].

Bazinet v. Commission scolaire de la Seigneurie-des-Milles-Îles, 2004 QCCRT 606, refd to. [para. 123].

D'Amour v. Autobus Matanais inc., 2004 QCCRT 450, refd to. [para. 123].

Marcoux v. Thetford Mines (Ville), 2004 QCCRT 76, refd to. [para. 123].

Simard v. Québec (Ministère de la Sécurité publique), 2004 QCCRT 57, refd to. [para. 123].

Bédard v. Étalex inc., 2004 QCCRT 45, refd to. [para. 123].

Laramée v. Coop de taxi de Montréal, 2004 QCCRT 30, refd to. [para. 123].

Turcotte v. Montréal (Ville), 2003 QCCRT 545, refd to. [para. 123].

Turpin v. Collège d'enseignement général et professional de St-Laurent et autres (1988), 26 Q.A.C. 296 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 123].

Cie Price Ltée v. Auclair, D.T.E. 88T-688; SOQUIJ AZ-88021372 (Que. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 123].

Hôpital Royal Victoria v. Duceppe, [1984] T.T. 163, refd to. [para. 123].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, consd. [para. 126].

Syndicat des infirmières et infirmiers du Centre hospitalier de l'Archipel (FIIQ) v. Plante, [2003] J.Q. no 997 (Sup. Ct.), consd. [para. 127].

Immeubles Bona Ltée v. Labelle, [1995] R.D.J. 397 (Que. C.A.), consd. [para. 134].

Revenu Québec v. Fortin, 2009 QCCRT 241, refd to. [para. 134].

Côté v. Corporation Dicom, Dorval, [1987] T.A. 183, refd to. [para. 135].

Statutes Noticed:

Labour Code, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-27, sect. 12, sect. 13, sect. 14, sect. 15, sect. 16, sect. 17, sect. 114, sect. 118, sect. 119 [para. 17].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Adams, George W., Canadian Labour Law (2nd Ed. 1993) (2009 Looseleaf Update, Release 32), pp. 1-15 [para. 80]; 2-79 [para. 93]; 10-9 [para. 112]; 10-126.2 [para. 134]; paras. 10.360 [para. 60]; 10.7 to 10.8 [para. 91].

Bergevin, Michel, L'opportunité et l'efficacité de la réintégration, New Development in Employment Law (1989), p. 290 [para. 135].

Brière, Jean-Yves, and Villaggi, Jean-Pierre, Relations de travail (1997) (2009 Looseleaf Update, No. 307), vol. 1, p. 2,402 [para. 28].

Côté, Pierre-André, Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (3rd Ed. 2000), p. 499 [para. 126].

Gagnon, Robert P., Le droit du travail du Québec (5th Ed. 2003), pp. 274, 275 [para. 48].

Gagnon, Robert P., Le droit du travail du Québec (6th Ed. 2006) (2008 Update), pp. 261 [para. 82]; 306, 307 [para. 84]; 337 [para. 28].

Lluelles, Didier, and Moore, Benoît, Droit des obligations (2006), paras. 2876, 2877 [para. 133].

Morin, Fernand, Brière, Jean-Yves, and Roux, Dominic, Le droit de l'emploi au Québec (3rd Ed. 2006), pp. 807 [para. 93]; 811 [para. 82].

Quebec, National Assembly, Journal des débats de la Commission permanente de l'économie et du travail, vol. 37, no. 32, 2nd Sess., 36th Legislature (June 18, 2001), pp. 17, 21 [para. 143].

Quebec, National Assembly, Journal des débats de la Commission permanente de l'économie et du travail, vol. 37, no. 22, 2nd Sess., 36th Legislature (May 29, 2001), p. 47 [para. 50].

Summers, Clyde, Labor Law in the Supreme Court: 1964 Term (1965), 75 Yale L.J. 59, p. 67 [para. 111].

Verge, Pierre, Trudeau, Gilles, and Vallée, Guylaine, Le droit du travail par ses sources (2006), pp. 41 [para. 80]; 91 [para. 98]; 212 [para. 133]; 271 [para. 89]; 411, 412, 413 [para. 137].

Counsel:

Bernard Philion, Claude Leblanc and Gilles Grenier, for the appellant;

Roy L. Heenan, Corrado De Stefano and Frédéric Massé, for the respondent;

Hélène Fréchette, Vanessa Deschênes and Lucie Tessier, for the intervenor, Commission des relations du travail;

George Avraam, Mark Mendl, Jeremy Hann and Kevin B. Coon, for the intervenor, the Alliance of Manufacturers & Exporters Canada;

Robert Laurin, for the intervenor, Fédération des travailleurs du Québec (FTQ);

Robin Elliot, for the intervenor, the Coalition of BC Businesses;

Guy Du Pont, for the intervenor, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce;

Andrew K. Lokan and Jean-Claude Killey, for the intervenor, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Manon Savard and Sébastien Beauregard, for the intervenor, Conseil du patronat du Québec;

Steven Barrett and Lise Leduc, for the intervenor, the Canadian Labour Congress.

Solicitors of Record :

Philion Leblanc Beaudry, Montréal, Quebec, for the appellant;

Heenan Blaikie, Montréal, Quebec, for the respondent;

Commission des relations du travail, Québec, Quebec, for the intervenor, Commission des relations du travail;

Baker & McKenzie, Toronto,  Ontario, for the intervenor, the Alliance of Manufacturers & Exporters Canada;

Robert Laurin, Sainte-Julie, Quebec, for the intervenor, Fédération des travailleurs du Québec (FTQ);

University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., for the intervenor, the Coalition of BC Businesses;

Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg, Montréal, Quebec, for the intervenor, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce;

Paliare, Roland, Rosenberg, Rothstein, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Ogilvy Renault, Montréal, Quebec, for the intervenor, Conseil du patronat du Québec;

Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Canadian Labour Congress.

This appeal was heard on January 21, 2009, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following decision of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on November 27, 2009, and the following reasons were filed:

Binnie, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Deschamps, Fish, Charron and Rothstein, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 65;

Abella, J. (LeBel and Cromwell, JJ., concurring), dissenting - see paragraphs 66 to 147.