United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1518 v. KMart Canada Ltd. et al., (1999) 245 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci, Major and Binnie, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 09, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1999), 245 N.R. 1 (SCC);66 BCLR (3d) 211;[1999] SCJ No 44 (QL);[1999] 2 SCR 1083;[1999] 9 WWR 161;66 CRR (2d) 205;176 DLR (4th) 607;128 BCAC 1;245 NR 1;JE 99-1845;1999 CanLII 650 (SCC);[1999] ACS no 44

UFCW v. KMart Can. Ltd. (1999), 245 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: [1999] N.R. TBEd. SE.005

United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1518 (appellant) v. KMart Canada Ltd. and the Labour Relations Board of British Columbia (respondents) and the Attorney General of British Columbia, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Retail Council of Canada, Coalition of B.C. Businesses and Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd. (interveners)

(File No. 26209)

Indexed As: United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1518 v. KMart Canada Ltd. et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci, Major and Binnie, JJ.

September 9, 1999.

Summary:

Union members on lawful strike embarked on a consumer leafleting campaign at several secondary sites of the employer. The employer applied for an order prohibiting picketing at secondary sites. The Industrial Relations Council (later the Labour Relations Board) granted an order restraining the union members' activity. In a second decision the Council clarified its order to include leaflet­ing in the prohibited activities. The union applied for a reconsideration of the decision. The Labour Relations Board Review Panel upheld Council's decisions. Despite having reached a collective agreement in the labour dispute, the union applied for judicial review.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported in 14 B.C.L.R.(3d) 162, dismissed the application. The union appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 94 B.C.A.C. 299; 152 W.A.C. 299, dismissed the appeal. The union appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal. The court held that the definition of "picketing" in s. 1(1) of the Labour Rela­tions Code infringed s. 2(b) of the Charter and could not be saved under s. 1. The court declared the definition of "picketing" to be of no force or effect under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, but suspended the declaration of invalidity for six months.

Administrative Law - Topic 9118

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Curial deference to decisions of tribunals - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "[i]t has been recognized that where a Labour Board is acting within its jurisdic­tion its decision can only be overturned if it is patently unreasonable. However where the Board interpreted or applied the Char­ter the standard of review must be that of correctness." - See paragraph 69.

Civil Rights - Topic 1850

Freedom of speech or expression - Limi­tations on - Picketing - Union members on a lawful strike distributed leaflets at sec­ondary sites - Sections 65(3) and 67 of the Labour Relations Code prohibited picket­ing at secondary sites - Section 1(1) defined picketing broadly and "undoubted­ly encompassed leafleting" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that ss. 1, 65 and 67 had the effect of restricting consumer leafleting and, therefore, infringed the freedom of expression - See paragraphs 21 to 33 - The court held that the restriction was not reasonably justified under s. 1 of the Charter - The object of the restriction was to minimize the impact of labour disputes on third parties - Sections 1, 65 and 67 operated as a blanket prohibition on any persuasive activity by striking or locked-out employees at neutral sites, including peaceful leafleting - Therefore, it did not meet minimal impairment re­quire­ment - The court struck down the defini­tion of "picketing" in s. 1(1) - See para­graphs 34 to 79.

Civil Rights - Topic 1852.1

Freedom of speech or expression - Limi­tations on - Labour legislation - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1850 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Free­doms - Application - Exceptions - Rea­sonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1850 ].

Labour Law - Topic 576

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Judicial review - Standard of review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 9118 ].

Labour Law - Topic 8102

Industrial relations - Picketing - General principles - What constitutes pick­eting - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that, although they were both exercises of free­dom of expression, consumer leafleting was very different from a conventional picketing - Picket lines were the trade­mark of picketing - The picket line acted as a barrier and sent the signal to the public not to cross - It impeded public access to goods or services, employees' access to their workplace, and suppliers' access to the site of deliveries - Leafleting attempted to persuade the public to take a different course of action through informed and rational discourse - It did not trigger the "signal" effect inherent in picket lines, have the same coercive component or significantly impede access to of egress from premises - See paragraphs 39 to 43 - The court discussed permissible leaflet­ing -See paragraphs 56 to 58.

Labour Law - Topic 8103

Industrial relations - Picketing - General principles - What constitutes illegal pick­eting - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1850 ].

Labour Law - Topic 8164

Industrial relations - Picketing - Right to picket - Secondary picketing - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1850 ].

Words and Phrases

Picket - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "picket" as defined in s. 1(1) of the Labour Rela­tions Code, S.B.C. 1992, c. 82.

Words and Phrases

Picketing - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "pick­eting" as defined in s. 1(1) of the Labour Relations Code, S.B.C. 1992, c. 82.

Cases Noticed:

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 174; 38 C.C.L.T. 184; 25 C.R.R. 321; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 577, consd. [para. 18].

Libman v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 569; 218 N.R. 241; 151 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 21].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 577; [1990] 1 W.W.R. 577; 1 Alta. L.R.(2d) 273, refd to. [para. 21].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,203; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [para. 22].

Royal College of Dental Surgeons (Ont.) v. Rocket and Price, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 232; 111 N.R. 161; 40 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81; 1 C.R.(4th) 129; 77 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 1; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 24].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 24].

Thomson Newspapers Co. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877; 226 N.R. 1; 109 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 24].

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; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 25].

McKinney v. University of Guelph et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; 118 N.R. 1; 45 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 25].

Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 701; 219 N.R. 161; 123 Man.R.(2d) 1; 159 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 25].

Delisle v. Canada (Deputy Attorney Gen­eral) (1999), 244 N.R. 33 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 416; 26 C.C.E.L. 85, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 55 C.R.(3d) 193; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 28 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 25].

Edwards Books and Art Ltd. v. R. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada et al. v. Canada, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 139; 120 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 28].

Ramsden v. Peterborough (City), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 1084; 156 N.R. 2; 66 O.A.C. 10, refd to. [para. 28].

Saumur v. Quebec (City), [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299, refd to. [para. 28].

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. [para. 29].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur gén­éral), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 34].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 120 D.L.R.(4th) 12, refd to. [para. 34].

British Columbia Government Employee's Union v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214; 87 N.R. 241; 71 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 93; 220 A.P.R. 93; 31 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273, refd to. [para. 37].

Harrison v. Carswell, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 200; 5 N.R. 523, refd to. [para. 39].

Canada Safeway Ltd. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 213 (1987), 16 C.L.R.B.R.(N.S.) 1 (B.C.), refd to. [para. 41].

DeBartolo (Edward J.) Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Construction Trades Council (1988), 485 U.S. 568 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 52].

Babbitt, Governor of Arizona v. United Farm Workers National Union (1979), 442 U.S. 289 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 53].

NLRB v. Retail Store Employees Union, Local 1001 (1980), 447 U.S. 607 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 53].

Bakery Drivers Local 802 v. Wohl (1942), 315 U.S. 769 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 54].

Hughes v. Superior Court of California for Contra Costa County (1950), 339 U.S. 460 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 54].

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 695 v. Vogt Inc. (1957), 354 U.S. 284 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 54].

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. 63].

Eldridge et al. v. British Columbia (Attor­ney General) et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624; 218 N.R. 161; 96 B.C.A.C. 81; 155 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 63].

Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General) - see Chaussure Brown's Inc. et al. v. Quebec (Procureur général).

Chaussure Brown's Inc. et al. v. Quebec (Procureur général), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712; 90 N.R. 84; 19 Q.A.C. 69, refd to. [para. 66].

Royal Oak Mines Inc. v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 369; 193 N.R. 81; 133 D.L.R.(4th) 129, refd to. [para. 69].

International Longshoremen's and Ware­housemen's Union, Ship and Dock Fore­men, Local 514 v. Prince Rupert Grain Ltd., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 432; 198 N.R. 99, refd to. [para. 69].

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Corp., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 227; 26 N.R. 341; 25 N.B.R.(2d) 237; 57 A.P.R. 237; 97 D.L.R.(3d) 417, 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].

Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5; 122 N.R. 361; 47 O.A.C. 271, refd to. [para. 69].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 157; 177 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 69].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 79].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1, sect. 2(b) [para. 14].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52(1) [para. 14].

Labour Relations Code, S.B.C. 1992, c. 82, sect. 1(1), sect. 2(1)(c), sect. 2(1)(d), sect. 2(1)(e), sect. 64, sect. 65(3), sect. 65(7), sect. 67 [para. 14].

Authors and Works Noticed:

British Columbia, Debates of the Legislat­ive Assembly, June 10, 1987, p. 1695 [para. 60].

Carrothers, A.W.R., Palmer, E.E. and Rayner, W.B., Collective Bargaining Law in Canada (2nd Ed. 1986), pp. 609, 610 [para. 48]; 716, 717 [para. 49].

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (9th Ed. 1998), pp. 765-777 [para. 43].

Manwaring, J.A., Bringing the Common Law to the Bar of Justice: A Comment on the Decision in the Case of Dolphin Delivery Ltd. (1987), 19 Ottawa L. Rev. 413, pp. 432, 433 [para. 50].

Weiler, Joseph M., The Regulations of Strikes and Picketing under the Charter, in Litigating the Values of a Nation: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Free­doms (1986), pp. 241, 242 [para. 62].

Weiler, Paul C., Reconcilable Differences: New Directions in Canadian Labour Law (1980), p. 79 [para. 40].

Weiler, Paul C., The Charter at Work: Reflections on the Constitutionalizing of Labour and Employment Law (1990), 40 U.T.L.J. 117, pp. 184, 185 [para. 62].

Counsel:

John Baigent, for the appellant;

Patrick G. Foy, Q.C., for the respondent, KMart Canada Ltd.;

Joseph J. Arvray, Q.C., and Charles Gordon, for the respondent the Labour Relations Board of British Columbia;

George H. Copley, Q.C., for the inter­vener, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Steven M. Barrett, Frank Addario and Vanessa Payne, for the intervener, the Canadian Labour Congress;

John B. Laskin and Trevor C.W. Farrow, for the intervener, Canadian Civil Lib­erties Association;

John R. Sproat, for the intervener, the Retail Council of Canada;

Andrea L. Zwack, for the intervener, the Coalition of B.C. Businesses;

R.G. Richards, Q.C., for the intervener, Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd. (written submissions only).

Solicitors of Record:

Baigent & Jackson, Enderby, British Col­umbia, for the appellant;

Ladner Downs, Vancouver, British Col­umbia, for the respondent, KMart Canada Ltd.;

Arvay Finlay, Victoria, British Columbia, for the respondent, Labour Relations Board of British Columbia;

George H. Copley and Jennifer Button, Victoria, British Columbia, for the intervener, Attorney General of British Columbia;

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

Tory Tory DesLauriers & Binnington, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Miller Thomson, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, Retail Council of Canada;

Heenan Blaikie, Vancouver, British Col­umbia, for the intervener, Coalition of B.C. Businesses;

MacPherson Leslie & Tyerman, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the intervener, Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd.

This appeal was heard on February 15 and 16, 1999, by Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci, Major and Binnie, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Cory, J., delivered the following judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, in both official languages on September 9, 1999.