Wal-Mart Canada Corp. v. Desbiens et al., (2009) 396 N.R. 89 (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. 89 (SCC);2009 SCC 55

Wal-Mart Can. Corp. v. Desbiens (2009), 396 N.R. 89 (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.049

Johanne Desbiens, Ingrid Ratté and Claudine Beaumont (appellants) 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)

(32527; 2009 SCC 55; 2009 CSC 55)

Indexed As: Wal-Mart Canada Corp. v. Desbiens et al.

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 the employees were dismissed. Three of them filed a complaint under s. 16 of the Labour Code (Que.). They sought reinstatement.

The Commission des relations du travail (Que.), in a decision reported 2005 QCCRT 502, allowed the complaint. Wal-Mart applied for judicial review.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision reported 2006 QCCS 3784, dismissed the application. Wal-Mart appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 2006 QCCA 236, allowed the appeal. The complaining employees appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Abella, LeBel and Cromwell, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal, without costs.

Courts - Topic 2107

Jurisdiction - Appellate jurisdiction - To make fresh assessment of evidence - [See Labour Law - Topic 3544 ].

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 a mediator was appointed to resolve differences resulting from the unsuccessful negotiations for a first collective agreement between Wal-Mart and its freshly unionized employees - All the employees were dismissed - It was not clear that Wal-Mart had divested itself of any interest in the lease for the premises - Three employees filed a complaint under s. 16 - They sought reinstatement - The Commission des relations du travail (Que.) (CRT) allowed the complaint - Wal-Mart had not rebutted the presumption in s. 17 where, on the basis of the evidence at hand, the store closure was not permanent - A review judge upheld the decision but the Quebec Court of Appeal quashed it - The complaining employees appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada - By the time of the decision, the court, in the companion case of Plourde v. Wal-Mart, had upheld a CRT decision that dismissed a s. 16 complaint where the CRT had evidence that the store closure was permanent (store emptied, lease rescinded) and hence, the s. 17 presumption was rebutted - In the present case, no one contended that Wal-Mart retained an option to re-open the store - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, but without costs - See paragraphs 1 to 10.

Practice - Topic 8340

Costs - Appeals - Cases where costs of appeal refused - General - [See Labour Law - Topic 3544 ].

Cases Noticed:

City Buick Pontiac (Montréal) Inc. v. Roy, [1981] T.T. 22 (Que. Lab. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 3, 12].

Caya v. 1641-9749 Québec Inc., D.T.E. 85T-242, SOQUIJ AZ-85147051 (Que. Lab. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

Bérubé v. Groupe Samson inc., D.T.E. 85T-932, SOQUIJ AZ-85147126 (Que. Lab. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

Ouellette v. Restaurants Scott Québec Ltée, D.T.E. 88T-546, SOQUIJ AZ-88147062 (Que. Lab. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

Entreprises Bérou inc. v. Arsenault, [1991] T.T. 312 (Que. Lab. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

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. 6].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 157; 177 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 6].

Royal Oak Mines Inc. v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 369; 193 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 6].

Statutes Noticed:

Labour Code, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-27, sect. 17 [para. 2].

Counsel:

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

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 appellants;

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 10;

Abella, J. (LeBel and Cromwell, JJ., concurring), dissenting - see paragraphs 11 to 14.