2 total
Supreme Court upholds Quebec regulation providing lower welfare benefits to individuals under 30.
The appellant challenged a Quebec social assistance regulation that provided a significantly lower base amount of welfare benefits to individuals under the age of 30 compared to those 30 and over, unless they participated in specific training or work experience programs.
The appellant argued that this age-based distinction violated her equality rights under section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter, her right to security of the person under section 7 of the Canadian Charter, and her right to financial assistance under section 45 of the Quebec Charter.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.
The majority held that the scheme did not violate section 15(1) because it was designed to ameliorate the situation of young people by encouraging their integration into the workforce, and did not treat them as less worthy of respect.
The majority also found no violation of section 7, concluding that the deprivation of security of the person was not caused by state action implicating the administration of justice, and declined to recognize a positive state obligation to guarantee adequate living standards under section 7.
Finally, the majority held that section 45 of the Quebec Charter did not subject the adequacy of social assistance measures to judicial review.
Labour Court could reopen a settled dismissal grievance after unfair union representation.
The appellant employer challenged a labour tribunal order authorizing an employee to pursue arbitration of a dismissal grievance after the union had withdrawn it through a general grievance settlement reached during collective agreement renewal.
The Court held that the union's duty of fair representation required serious, good faith consideration of the employee's dismissal grievance and that the union acted arbitrarily and with serious negligence by disposing of it without the employee's knowledge on grounds unrelated to the merits.
The Court further held that a settlement agreement between union and employer was not equivalent to an arbitral award or civil transaction barring further recourse, and that the Labour Court had jurisdiction under ss. 47.2 to 47.6 of the Labour Code to refer the claim to arbitration where no arbitral decision on the merits had yet been made.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
