Balraj Dosanjh

The appellants, a postal workers' union and its representatives, sought a declaration that federal back-to-work legislation ending rotating strikes in 2018 unjustifiably limited their members' freedom of association under s. 2(d) and freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The application judge dismissed the application as moot because the legislation was spent and declined to exercise discretion to decide on the merits under the Borowski criteria.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal agreed the application was moot and deferred to the discretionary decision not to hear it on the merits.

In the alternative, the court found the legislation limited s. 2(d) rights but was justified under s. 1, and that neither the Prime Minister's public statement nor the Act limited s. 2(b) rights.

Appeal dismissed.

This costs endorsement addresses the quantum of costs sought by an intervenor, Canada Post Corporation (CPC), following the unsuccessful constitutional challenge by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) against back-to-work legislation.

While CUPW settled costs with the Attorney General, CPC sought an additional $492,258.13.

The court found CPC's request extraordinarily high for an intervenor, noting the Attorney General was the lead responding party.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonable expectations under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reduced CPC's costs to an all-inclusive amount of $150,000.

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) challenged the constitutionality of the Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act (PSRCA), SC 2018, c 25, arguing it infringed freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The legislation ended a series of rotating strikes and imposed a mediation-arbitration process.

The court found the application moot because the PSRCA was spent legislation, having led to new collective agreements, and there was no live controversy or suitable remedy.

However, in obiter, the court stated that if the matter were not moot, the PSRCA would infringe s. 2(d) but would be justified under s. 1 of the Charter, as it constituted a minimal impairment due to its fair and neutral dispute resolution mechanism, unlike previous unconstitutional back-to-work legislation.

The Ontario government appealed a decision finding that the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019 (Bill 124), which imposed a 1% cap on compensation increases for broader public sector employees, violated the right to freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the Act substantially interfered with the respondents' collective bargaining rights and was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, as it was not minimally impairing and its deleterious effects outweighed its salutary effects.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to limit the declaration of invalidity to represented employees, as non-represented employees do not benefit from the same collective bargaining protections.

The applicants, representing various public sector unions, challenged the constitutionality of the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019 (Bill 124), which limited wage increases for broader public sector employees to 1% per year for a three-year moderation period.

The court found that the Act substantially interfered with the applicants' right to freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter by preventing meaningful collective bargaining over wages and other compensation-related issues.

The court dismissed the applicants' claims under s. 2(b) (freedom of expression) and s. 15 (equality rights).

The court further held that the infringement of s. 2(d) was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, as the government failed to demonstrate a pressing and substantial objective or that the measure was minimally impairing.

The Act was declared void and of no effect.

The Society of United Professionals appealed a Divisional Court decision affirming the Ontario Labour Relations Board's (OLRB) rulings regarding New Horizon System Solutions' refusal to disclose a Master Services Agreement (MSA).

The Society alleged violations of ss. 17 (duty to bargain in good faith) and 70 (interference with union representation) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's finding that the OLRB's decisions were reasonable, concluding that the MSA was not necessary for the Society to carry out its representational duties under s. 70 and that the s. 17 application was premature when initially brought.

The court also found the OLRB's partial disclosure order under s. 17 and its reliance on counsel's representation regarding a specific MSA article to be reasonable.