Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan, (2015) 451 Sask.R. 1 (SCC)

JudgeMcLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateJanuary 30, 2015
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2015), 451 Sask.R. 1 (SCC);2015 SCC 4;[2015] 1 SCR 245

Sask. Labour Federation v. Sask. (2015), 451 Sask.R. 1 (SCC);

    628 W.A.C. 1

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] Sask.R. TBEd. JA.059

Saskatchewan Federation of Labour (in its own right and on behalf of the unions and workers in the Province of Saskatchewan), Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 588, Canadian Office and Professional Employees' Union, Local 397, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Locals 7 and 4828, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers' Union of Canada and its Locals, Health Sciences Association of Saskatchewan, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of U.S., its Territories and Canada, Locals 295, 300 and 669, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Locals 529, 2038 and 2067, Saskatchewan Government and General Employees' Union, Saskatchewan Joint Board Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Saskatchewan Provincial Building & Construction Trades Council, Teamsters, Local 395, United Mine Workers of America, Local 7606, United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union and its Locals and University of Regina Faculty Association (appellants) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Saskatchewan (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of British Columbia, Attorney General of Alberta, Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan Union of Nurses, SEIU-West, United Nurses of Alberta, Alberta Federation of Labour, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, Canadian Constitution Foundation, Air Canada Pilots' Association, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, Conseil du patronat du Québec, Canadian Employers Council, Canadian Union of Postal Workers, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, British Columbia Teachers' Federation, Hospital Employees' Union, Canadian Labour Congress, Public Service Alliance of Canada, Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, Confédération des syndicats nationaux, Regina Qu'Appelle Regional Health Authority, Cypress Regional Health Authority, Five Hills Regional Health Authority, Heartland Regional Health Authority, Sunrise Regional Health Authority, Prince Albert Parkland Regional Health Authority, Saskatoon Regional Health Authority, National Union of Public and General Employees, Canada Post Corporation and Air Canada (interveners)

(35423; 2015 SCC 4; 2015 CSC 4)

Indexed As: Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan

Supreme Court of Canada

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

January 30, 2015.

Summary:

The Saskatchewan Federation of Labour (SFL) and the intervenor unions challenged the constitutional validity of the Public Service Essential Services Act (PSESA) and the Trade Union Amendment Act (TUAA), arguing that they violated the s. 2(d) Charter right to freedom of association. The issue was whether a prohibition on designated employees participating in strike action for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment amounted to a substantial interference with their right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining and, as a result, whether that interference violated s. 2(d) and was a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported (2012), 390 Sask.R. 196, held that the PSESA infringed employees' freedom of association and was not justified under s. 1 of the Charter. Accordingly, the PSESA was declared to be of no force or effect, with the declaration of invalidity suspended for a period of 12 months. The TUAA did not infringe employees' freedom of association. The Province appealed respecting the PSESA. The SFL appealed respecting the TUAA.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported (2013), 414 Sask.R. 70; 575 W.A.C. 70, allowed the Province's appeal and dismissed the SFL's appeal. Both Acts were constitutionally valid. The trial judge erred in finding that the PSESA was constitutionally invalid. In relation to s. 2(d) of the Charter, the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions in the Labour Trilogy (1987) were still the controlling authorities. The right to strike did not attract Charter protection. The court also rejected the arguments advanced in reliance on ss. 2(b), 7 and 15 of the Charter. The SFL appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Rothstein and Wagner, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal respecting the PSESA, but dismissed the appeal respecting the TUAA.

Civil Rights - Topic 2144

Freedom of association - Limitations on - Collective bargaining and right to strike - Saskatchewan's Public Service Essential Services Act prohibited designated essential service employees from engaging in any strike action for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment contracts - Although there was provision for negotiating "essential services agreements", absent an agreement the Province could unilaterally determine the issue - As of 2011, freedom of association (Charter, s. 2(d)) protected the right of employees to join together to pursue workplace goals, to make collective representations to the employer and to have those representations considered in good faith, including having a means of recourse if the employer did not bargain in good faith - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Act substantially interfered with the employees' right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining and thereby violated s. 2(d) - The conclusion that the right to strike was an essential part of a meaningful collective bargaining process in our system of labour relations was supported by history, by jurisprudence and by Canada's international obligations (Canada was a party to two instruments explicitly recognizing the right to strike) - The court stated that "Where strike action is limited in a way that substantially interferes with a meaningful process of collective bargaining, it must be replaced by one of the meaningful dispute resolution mechanisms commonly used in labour relations. Where essential services legislation provides such an alternative mechanism, it would more likely be justified under s. 1 of the Charter. ... the failure of any such mechanism in the PSESA is what ultimately renders its limitations constitutionally impermissible." - The Act violated s. 2(d) and was not saved under s. 1 - Although the maintenance of essential services was a pressing and substantial objective and the Act's objective was rationally connected to the basic structure of the Act, the Act failed the minimal impairment test - The court stated that "the provisions of the PSESA 'go beyond what is reasonably required to ensure the uninterrupted delivery of essential services during a strike'. I agree. The unilateral authority of public employers to determine whether and how essential services are to be maintained during a work stoppage with no adequate review mechanism, and the absence of a meaningful dispute resolution mechanism to resolve bargaining impasses, justify the trial judge's conclusion that the PSESA impairs the s. 2(d) rights more than necessary." - See paragraphs 1 to 97.

Civil Rights - Topic 2155

Freedom of association - Limitations on - Labour legislation - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2144 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 2155

Freedom of association - Limitations on - Labour legislation - The Saskatchewan Trade Union Amendment Act introduced stricter requirements for a union to be certified by increasing the required level of written support from 25% to 45% of employees, by reducing the period for receiving written support from the employees from six months to three, and by eliminating the automatic certification previously available when over 50% of the employees had given written support prior to the application - The Saskatchewan Labour Board no longer had any discretion to decide whether a representation vote by secret ballot was needed - The Act also decreased the level of employee support required for decertification from 50% to 45% - Finally, it was no longer an "unfair labour practice" for an employer to communicate "facts and its opinions to its employees" during the exercise of their rights under the Act - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the Act did not violate the employees' right to freedom of association (Charter, s. 2(d)) - Amending the process for certification and decertification, and allowing an employer to communicate "facts and its opinions to its employees", did not render meaningful collective bargaining effectively impossible nor did the amended process substantially interfere with this process - See paragraphs 14 to 15, 99 to 102.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (s. 1) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2144 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8470

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - International law - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2144 ].

Courts - Topic 19

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - Constitutional issues - In Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration (SCC 1987), it was held that the s. 2(d) Charter right to freedom of expression did not protect the right to bargain collectively or the right to strike - In Health Services (SCC 2007), freedom of association was extended to protect the right to engage in a meaningful process of collective bargaining - In Fraser (SCC 2011), it was further extended to protect the right of employees to join together to pursue workplace goals, to make collective representations to the employer and to have those representations considered in good faith, including having a means of recourse if the employer did not bargain in good faith - In Mounted Police (SCC 2015), it was held that the process of collective bargaining could not be meaningful if employees lacked the independence and choice to determine and pursue their collective interests - The Supreme Court of Canada overruled Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration (SCC 1987) in finding that the Saskatchewan Public Service Essential Services Act violated freedom of association (Charter, s. 2(d)) in a manner not saved by s. 1 (failed the minimal impairment test) - Rothstein and Wagner, JJ., dissenting on the s. 2(d) issue, stated that the majority should not have overruled the Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration precedent because, inter alia, "neither developments in the s. 2(d) jurisprudence, nor any change in the circumstances of Canadian labour relations justifies the trial judge's departure from Supreme Court precedent" - See paragraphs 137 to 141.

Courts - Topic 126.1

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - Courts of superior jurisdiction - Supreme Court of Canada - General - [See Courts - Topic 19 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9727

Public service labour relations - Strikes - Essential services (incl. determination of employees prohibited from striking) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2144 ].

Cases Noticed:

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

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

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. [para. 1].

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. [para. 1].

Mounted Police Association of Ontario et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2015), 466 N.R. 199; 2015 SCC 1, refd to. [para. 1].

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. [para. 32].

Perrault v. Gauthier (1898), 28 S.C.R. 241, refd to. [para. 33].

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Zambri, [1962] S.C.R. 609, refd to. [para. 33].

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. 41].

Gagnon v. Foundation Maritime Ltd., [1961] S.C.R. 435, refd to. [para. 43].

Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 558 et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 156; 280 N.R. 333; 217 Sask.R. 22; 265 W.A.C. 22; 2002 SCC 8, refd to. [para. 48].

Service Employees International Union, Local 204 v. Broadway Manor Nursing Home (1983), 4 D.L.R.(4th) 231 (Ont. Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 52].

Williams v. Aristocratic Restaurants (1947) Ltd., [1951] S.C.R. 762, refd to. [para. 57].

United Nurses of Alberta v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 901; 125 A.R. 241; 14 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 58].

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. [para. 60].

R. v. Hape (L.R.), [2007] 2 S.C.R. 292; 363 N.R. 1; 227 O.A.C. 191; 2007 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 64].

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. 64].

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees et al. and the Crown in Right of Alberta, Re (1980), 120 D.L.R.(3d) 590 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 65].

Attorney-General v. National Labour Court, [1995-1996] Isr. L.R. 149 (H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 73].

New Histadrut General Workers' Union v. State of Israel (2006), 25 I.L.L.R. 375, refd to. [para. 73].

Koach La Ovadim v. Jerusalem Cinematheque (2009), 29 I.L.L.R. 329, refd to. [para. 73].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Advance Cutting and Coring Ltd. et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 209; 276 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 76].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 80].

Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, section locale 301 v. Montréal (Ville), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 793; 210 N.R. 101, refd to. [para. 82].

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 301 v. Montreal (City) - see Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, section locale 301 v. Montréal (Ville).

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. [para. 99].

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. 99].

Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.A.C. 237, refd to. [para. 115].

Plourde v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp., [2009] 3 S.C.R. 465; 396 N.R. 1; 2009 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 126].

Polowin (David) Real Estate Ltd. v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co. (2005), 199 O.A.C. 266; 76 O.R.(3d) 161 (C.A.), refd to [para. 137].

Turp v. Canada (Minister of Justice) et al., [2014] 1 F.C.R. 439; 415 F.T.R. 192; 2012 FC 893, refd to. [para. 159].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 2(d) [para. 26].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Adams, George W., Canadian Labour Law (2nd Ed. 1993) (2014 Looseleaf Update, Release 50), paras. 1.250 [para. 45]; 1.80 [para. 39]; 11.90 [para. 110].

Adams, Roy J., Labour Left Out: Canada's Failure to Portect and Promote Collective Bargaining as a Human Right (2006), p. 19 [para. 123].

Adams, Roy J., The Supreme Court, Collective Bargaining and International Law: A Reply to Brian Langille (2008), 14 C.L.E.L.J. 317, pp. 321 [para. 69]; 324 [para. 70].

Adell, Bernard, Grant, Michel, and Ponak, Allen, Strikes in Essential Services (2001), p. 8 [para. 60].

Arthurs, Harry W., Tort Liability for Strikes in Canada: Some Problems of Judicial Workmanshp (1960), 38 Can. Bar. Rev. 346, p. 349 [para. 110].

Beaulieu, M.-L., Les Conflits de Droit dans les Rapports Collectifs du Travail (1955), pp. 29, 30 [para. 35].

Bellace, Janice R., The ILO and the right to strike (2014), 153 Int'l Lab. Rev. 29, p. 30 [para. 67].

Côté, Pierre-André, Beaulac, Stéphane, and Devinat, Mathieu, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (4th Ed. 2011), pp. 395 to 400 [para. 157].

Deakin, Simon, and Morris, Gillian S., Labour Law (6th Ed. 2012), p. 8 [para 36].

D'Aoust, Claude, and Delorme, François, The Origin of the Freedom of Association and of the Right to Strike In Canada: An Historical Perspective (1981), 36 R.I. 894, generally [para. 38].

Davidov, Guy, Judicial Development of Collective Labour Rights - Contextually (2009-2010), 15 C.L.E.L.J. 235, p. 241 [para. 73].

England, Geoffrey, Some Thoughts on Constitutionalizing the Right to Strike (1988), 13:2 Queens L.J. 168, pp. 175 [para. 38]; 188 [para. 55].

Fudge, Judy, and Tucker, Eric, The Freedom to Strike in Canada: A Brief Legal History (2009-2010), 15 C.L.E.L.J. 333, pp. 333 [para. 55]; 334 [para. 54]; 340, 341 [para. 37]; 350 [para. 44].

Hepple, Bob, The Right to Strike in an International Context (2009-2010), 15 C.L.E.L.J. 133, p. 139 [para. 47].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (5th Ed. 2007), pp. 11-2 to 11-4 [para. 159]; 36-39 to 36-43 [para. 157].

International Labour Conference, Conference Committee on the Application of Standards: Extracts from the Record of Proceedins (2013), 102nd Sess., generally [para 153].

International Labour Conference, Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining (1994), para. 147 [para. 67].

International Labour Organization, Convention No. 87, Freedom of Association: Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee of the Governing Body of the ILO (5th rev. Ed. 2006), para. 520 [para. 153].

International Labour Organization, Freedom of Association: Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee of the Governing Body of the ILO (5th rev. Ed. 2006), generally [para. 68].

Kahn-Freund, Otto, and Hepple, Bob, Laws Against Strikes (1972), p. 8 [para. 3].

Langille, Brian A., Can We Rely on the ILO? (2006-2007), 13 C.L.E.L.J. 273, pp. 285, 287 [para. 153].

Langille, Brian, What is a Strike (2009-2010), 15 C.L.E.L.J. 355, pp. 368, 369 [para. 111].

Lynk, Michael, Expert Opinion on Essential Services, paras. 19, 20 [para. 86]; 20, p. 145 [para. 55].

Novitz, Tonia, Connecting Freedom of Association and the Right to Strike: European Dialogue with the ILO and its Potential Impact (2009-2010), 15 C.L.E.L.J. 465, p. 472 [para. 70].

Oliphant, Benjamin, Exiting the Freedom of Association Labyrinth: Resurrecting the Parallel Liberty Standard Under 2(d) & Saving the Freedom to Strike (2012), 70:2 U.T. Fac. L. Rev. 36, p. 41 [para. 111].

Palmer, Bryan D., Labour Protest and Organization in Nineteenth-Century Canada, 1820-1890 (1987), 20 Labour 61, generally [para. 38].

Regenbogen, Sonia, The International Labour Organization and Freedom of Association: Does Freedom of Association Include the Right to Strike (2012), 16 C.L.E.L.J. 385, pp. 398 to 400, 404 [para. 153].

Rubin, Neville, Kalula, Evance, and Hepple, Bob, Code of International Labour Law: Law, Practice and Jurisprudence, vol. 1, Essentials of International Labour Law (2005), p. 31 [para. 69].

Selected Decisions of the Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol (1990), vol. 2, p. 34, para. 6.4 [para. 154].

Servais, Jean-Michel, ILO Law and the Right to Strike (2009-2010), 15 C.L.E.L.J. 174, pp. 148 [para. 74]; 150 [para. 67]; 154 [para 86].

Swepston, Lee, Human rights law and freedom of association: Development through ILO supervision (1998), 137 Int'l Lab. Rev. 169, p. 187 [para. 153].

Trudeau, Gilles, La grève au Canada et aux États-Unis: d'un passé glorieux à un avenir incertain (2004), 38 R.J.T. 1, generally [para. 38].

Valticos, N., and Von Potobsky, G., International Labour Law (2nd rev. Ed. 1995), paras. 661 to 664 [para. 153].

Verge, Pierre, and Roux, Dominic, L'affirmation des principes de la liberté syndicale, de la négociation collective et du droit de grève selon le droit international et le droit du travail canadien: deux solitudes?, in Verge, Pierre, Droit international du travail: Perspectives canadiennes (2010), pp. 460 [para. 67]; 461, 462 [para. 86].

Verge, Pierre, Droit international du travail: Perspectives canadiennes (2010), pp. 460 [paras. 67]; 461, 462 [para. 86].

Weiler, Paul, Reconcilable Differences: New Directions in Canadian Labour Law (1980), pp. 69 [para. 61]; 237 [para. 93].

Weiss, Manfred, and Schmidt, Marlene, Labour Law and Industrial Relations in Germany (4th rev. Ed. 2008), paras. 484 to 486 [para. 72].

Woods, H.D., Canadian Industrial Relations: The Report of the Task Force on Labour Relations (1969), pp. 129, 175, 176 [para. 46].

Counsel:

Rick Engel, Q.C., Craig D. Bavis and Peter Barnacle, for the appellants;

Graeme G. Mitchell, Q.C., Barbara C. Mysko and Katherine M. Roy, for the respondent;

Mark R. Kindrachuk, Q.C., and Sean Gaudet, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Robert E. Charney and Sarah Wright, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Ontario;

Caroline Renaud and Amélie Pelletier Desrosiers, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Keith Evans, for the intervener, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

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

Chantelle MacDonald Newhook, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador;

Gary L. Bainbridge and Marcus R. Davies, for the intervener, the Saskatchewan Union of Nurses;

Drew S. Plaxton, for the intervener, SEIU-West;

Written submissions only by Ritu Khullar, Q.C., and Vanessa Cosco, for the interveners, the United Nurses of Alberta and the Alberta Federation of Labour;

Written submissions only by Peter C. Engelmann and Colleen Bauman, for the intervener, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada;

Darryl Cruz and Brandon Kain, for the intervener, the Canadian Constitution Foundation;

Steve Waller and Christopher Rootham, for the intervener, the Air Canada Pilots' Association;

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

Written submissions only by Louise Laplante, Nancy Ménard-Cheng and Sébastien Beauregard, for the intervener, Conseil du patronat du Québec;

John D.R. Craig and Christopher D. Pigott, for the intervener, the Canadian Employers Council;

Paul J.J. Cavalluzzo and Adrienne Telford, for the interveners, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers;

Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C., and Catherine J. Boies Parker, for the interveners, the British Columbia Teachers' Federation and the Hospital Employees' Union;

Written submissions only by Steven Barrett and Ethan Poskanzer, for the intervener, the Canadian Labour Congress;

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

Patrick G. Nugent and Tamara Friesen, for the intervener, the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees;

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

Evert van Olst, Q.C., and Leah Schatz, for the interveners, the Regina Qu'Appelle Regional Health Authority, the Cypress Regional Health Authority, the Five Hills Regional Health Authority, the Heartland Regional Health Authority, the Sunrise Regional Health Authority, the Prince Albert Parkland Regional Health Authority and the Saskatoon Regional Health Authority;

Paul Champ and Bijon Roy, for the intervener, the National Union of Public and General Employees;

Written submissions only by Brian W. Burkett, for the interveners, the Canada Post Corporation and Air Canada.

Solicitors of Record:

Gerrand Rath Johnson, Regina, Saskatchewan; Victory Square Law Office, Vancouver, B.C., The W Law Group, Saskatoon, Sask., for the appellants;

Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Regina, Sask., for the respondent;

Attorney General of Canada, Saskatoon, Sask., for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

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

Attorney General of Quebec, Quebec, Que., for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Attorney General of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., for the intervener, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

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

Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John's, N.L., for the intervener, the Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador;

Bainbridge Jodouin Cheecham, Saskatoon, Sask., for the intervener, the Saskatchewan Union of Nurses;

Plaxton & Company, Saskatoon, Sask., for the intervener, SEIU-West;

Chivers Carpenter, Edmonton, Alberta, for the interveners, the United Nurses of Alberta and the Alberta Federation of Labour;

Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada;

McCarthy Tétrault, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Constitution Foundation;

Nelligan O'Brien Payne, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, the Air Canada Pilots' Association;

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

Norton Rose Fulbright Canada, Montreal, Quebec, for the intervener, Conseil du patronat du Québec;

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Employers Council;

Cavalluzzo Shilton McIntyre Cornish, Toronto, Ontario, for the interveners, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers;

Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the interveners, the British Columbia Teachers' Federation and the Hospital Employees' Union;

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

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

Nugent Law Office, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervener, the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees;

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

Saskatoon Regional Health Authority, Saskatoon, Sask.; MacPherson Leslie & Tyerman, Saskatoon, Sask., for the interveners, the Regina Qu'Appelle Regional Health Authority, the Cypress Regional Health Authority, the Five Hills Regional Health Authority, the Heartland Regional Health Authority, the Sunrise Regional Health Authority, the Prince Albert Parkland Regional Health Authority and the Saskatoon Regional Health Authority;

Champ & Associates, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, the National Union of Public and General Employees;

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin, Toronto, Ontario, for the interveners, the Canada Post Corporation and Air Canada.

This appeal was heard on May 16, 2014, before McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On January 30, 2015, the judgment of the Court was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Abella, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Lebel, Cromwell and Karakatsanis, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 103;

Rothstein and Wagner, JJ., dissenting - see paragraphs 104 to 176.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
4 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT