Reference Re Canada Labour Code and State Immunity Act (Can.), (1992) 137 N.R. 81 (SCC)

• Judge: Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 11, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1992), 137 N.R. 81 (SCC);1992 CanLII 54 (SCC);JE 92-919;[1992] 2 SCR 50;[1992] SCJ No 49 (QL);91 DLR (4th) 449;137 NR 81

Ref. Re Can. Labour Code (1992), 137 N.R. 81 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

The United States of America (appellant) v. The Public Service Alliance of Canada, The Attorney General of Canada and The Canada Labour Relations Board

(No. 21641)

Indexed As: Reference Re Canada Labour Code and State Immunity Act (Can.)

Supreme Court of Canada

La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé,

Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory, JJ.

May 21, 1992.

Summary:

A group of Canadian civilians employed on a United States Defence Base in Argen­tia, Newfoundland, applied for certification under the Canada Labour Code. The United States claimed state immunity under the State Immunity Act. The Canada Labour Relations Board ruled that the United States could not claim state immunity. The issue was referred to the Federal Court of Appeal under s. 28(4) of the Federal Court Act.

The Federal Court of Appeal held that the employment of the civilians on a United States Base related to a commercial activity by a foreign state and therefore pursuant to s. 5 of the State Immunity Act, the United States could not claim the immunity given by s. 3 of the Act. The United States appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Cory and Sopinka, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal.

International Law - Topic 2200

Sovereignty - Incidents of - Immunity - General - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the common law antecedents of the State Immunity Act (Can.) - The court also compared Canada's codification of the common law with the statutory model in the United States - See paragraphs 24 to 35.

International Law - Topic 2202

Sovereignty - Incidents of - Immunity - Exceptions - Proceedings relating to com­mercial activity of foreign state (acta ges­tionis) - A group of Canadian civilians working on a United States defence base in Argentia, Newfoundland, applied for certi­fication under the Canada Labour Code - The United States claimed state immunity under s. 3 of the State Immunity Act (Can.) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that labour relations at the base were not "commercial activity" within the meaning of s. 5 of the Act and there­fore, the United States was entitled under s. 3 to be immune from the jurisdiction of any domestic labour tribunal.

International Law - Topic 2202

Sovereignty - Incidents of - Immunity - Exceptions - Proceedings relating to com­mercial activity of foreign state (acta ges­tionis) - A group of Canadian civilians working on a United States defence base in Argentia, Newfoundland, sought certifi­cation under the Canada Labour Code - The Supreme Court of Canada held that United States was immune from the juris­diction of domestic labour tribunals - The court opined, however, that a bare contract for employment services at the base was generally commercial activity, such that the employees were entitled to turn to Canadian courts for enforcement of their employment contracts - The court noted that it was not saying that employment contracts fall exclusively within the com­mercial realm - See paragraph 43.

Words and Phrases

Commercial activity - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of this phrase as it appeared in ss. 2 and 5 of the State Immunity Act, S.C. 80-81-82-83, c. 95 (now R.S.C. 1985, c. S-18).

Cases Noticed:

Texas Trading and Mill Corp. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (1981), 647 F.2d 300, refd to. [paras. 13, 16, 63, 84, 87, 98].

Goethe House New York, German Cultural Center v. National Labour Relations Board (1988), 685 F. Supp. 427 (S.D.N.Y.), revsd. (1989), 869 F.2d 75, cert. denied 110 S. Ct. 52, consd. [paras. 16, 56, 60, 108].

I Congreso del Partido, [1983] A.C. 244 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 26, 46, 63, 90].

De Sanchez v. Banco Central de Nicaragua (1985), 770 F.2d 1385, refd to. [paras. 31, 32].

Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center v. Hellenic Republic (1989), 877 F.2d 574, refd to. [paras. 32, 33, 89].

Joseph v. Office of Consulate General of Nigeria (1987), 830 F.2d 1018, refd to. [para. 32].

Bell Canada v. Commission de la santé et de la securité du travail (Que.) and Bilo­deau et al., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 749; 85 N.R. 295; 15 Q.A.C. 217, refd to. [para. 41].

Alltrans Express Ltd. v. Workers' Com-pen­sation Board (B.C.) et al., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 897; 85 N.R. 241; 15 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 41].

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Courtois, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 868; 85 N.R. 260; 15 Q.A.C. 181, refd to. [para. 41].

Reference Re Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (Stevedoring Case), [1955] S.C.R. 529, refd to. [para. 41].

Stevedoring Case - see Reference Re Industrial Relations and Disputes Inves­tigation Act.

Industrial Relations and Disputes Investi­gation Act (Stevedoring Case) - see Reference Re Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.

Validity of Industrial Relations and Dis­putes Investigation Act (Stevedoring Case) - see Reference Re Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.

Segni v. Commercial Office of Spain (1986), 650 F. Supp. 1042, refd to. [paras. 43, 85, 89].

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Trobbiani (1990), 73 Riv. Dir. Int. 402 (Italy S.C.), refd to. [para. 54].

Italian Trade Union for Embassy and Consular Staff v. United States (1981), 65 I.L.R. 338 (Italy), refd to. [para. 55].

State Bank of India v. National Labour Relations Board (1986), 808 F.2d 526, cert. denied (1987), 483 U.S. 1005, refd to. [paras. 56, 108].

Trendtex Trading Corp. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, [1977] Q.B. 529 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 63, 90].

Brewer v. Socialist People's Republic of Iraq (1989), 890 F.2d 97, refd to. [para. 89].

Weltover Inc. v. Republic of Argentina (1991), 941 F.2d 145, refd to. [para. 89].

Gouvernement de la République democra­tique du Congo v. Venne, [1969] Que. Q.B. 818, revsd. [1971] S.C.R. 997, refd to. [paras. 92-94].

Zodiac International Products Inc. v. Polish People's Republic, [1977] C.A. 366, refd to. [para. 94].

Amanat Khan v. Fredson Travel Inc. (No. 2) (1982), 36 O.R.(2d) 17, refd to. [para. 95].

State Bank of India v. National Labour Relations Board (1986), 808 F.2d 526, refd to. [para. 108].

Statutes Noticed:

American Bases Act, S.N. 1941, c. 12, generally [para. 2 et seq.].

Canada Labour Code - see Labour Code.

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(7) [para. 14].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, sect. 28(4) [paras. 7, 75, 76].

Federal Service Labor-Management Rela­tions Statute, Pub. L. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1192, 5 U.S.C., 7103(a)(2)(i) [paras. 6, 74].

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 1976, Pub. L. 94-583, 90 Stat. 2891, 28 U.S.C., generally [paras. 29, 82]; 1603(d) [para. 12]; 1604, 1605(a) [para. 76].

Labour Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. L-1, 2 [para. 14]; 3 [para. 67]; 36(1) [para. 66].

Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, gen­erally [para. 7].

Labour Code, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-27, sect. 109.1 [para. 51].

Leased Bases in Newfoundland, Agree­ments Concerning, [1952] C.T.C. No. 14, generally [para. 2]; arts. I, XXIX [paras. 9, 65].

Newfoundland Act, 1949, Schedule - Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada, R.S.C. 1985, App. II, No. 32, sect. 18 [para. 2].

North Atlantic Treaty Status of Forces Agreement, [1953] C.T.S. No. 13, gen­erally [para. 2]; art. IX(4) [para. 9 et seq.].

State Immunity Act (U.K.), 1978, c. 33 generally [paras. 11, 29, 90]; sect. 1(1), sect. 3(1)(a), sect. 3(1)(a), sect. 3(1)(b), sect. 3(3), sect. 4(1), sect. 4(2), sect. 4(3), sect. 4(4), sect. 4(5), sect. 4(6) [para. 76].

State Immunity Act, S.C. 1980-81-82-83, c. 95, sect. 2, sect. 3(1), sect. 3(2), sect. 4(1), sect. 4(2)(a), sect. 5 [para. 9 et seq.].

State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-18, generally [para. 1].

Visiting Forces Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. V-2, generally [para. 2].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Senate, Proceedings of the Stand­ing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Issue No. 10, March 19, 1981, p. 10:7-8 [para. 97].

Emanuelli, C., Commentaire: La Loi sur l'immunité des Etats (1985), 45 R. du B. 81, generally [para. 81]; pp. 100-101 [para. 34].

Senate of Canada - see Canada, Senate.

United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Statement of Leg­islative Purpose of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 [1976] United States Cong. & Admin. News 6604, generally [para. 12].

Counsel:

Brian A. Crane, Q.C., and Donald Dow, for the appellant;

Ronald A. Pink, Q.C., and Gordon For­syth, for the respondent, the Public Ser­vice Alliance of Canada;

Edward R. Sojonky, Q.C., and Gilles Vil­leneuve, for the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada;

H. Scott Fairley and John S. Contini, for the respondent, the Canada Labour Rela­tions Board.

Solicitors of Record:

Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Pink, Larkin, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the respondent, the Public Service Alliance of Canada;

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada;

Lang, Michener, Lawrence & Shaw, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, the Canada Labour Relations Board.

This appeal was heard on December 11, 1991, before La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on May 21, 1992, including the following opinions:

La Forest, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 1 to 68;

Cory, J., dissenting (Sopinka, J., concur­ring) - see paragraphs 69 to 110.