David Gisser

The YMHA participated in a federal job creation programme to renovate its premises, engaging unemployed workers whose wages were subsidized by unemployment insurance benefits and topped up by the YMHA.

The workers contested their classification as cleaners, arguing they performed construction work entitling them to higher wages under provincial legislation.

The Manitoba Labour Board agreed, but the Court of Appeal quashed the order, finding provincial wage laws inapplicable to the federal programme.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the workers were employees of the YMHA under provincial law and that the federal spending power used to establish the programme did not oust provincial jurisdiction over labour relations.

The appeal concerned whether a stay of labour board proceedings should issue pending determination of a constitutional challenge to legislation authorizing the imposition of a first collective agreement.

The Court held that a stay of proceedings and an interlocutory injunction are governed by the same framework: a serious question to be tried, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience.

In constitutional litigation, the balance of convenience must include the public interest, particularly where relief would restrain a statutory authority from performing public duties.

The Court rejected a literal presumption that legislation challenged under the Charter is presumed constitutionally valid and in full force for interlocutory purposes.

It restored the motion judge's refusal of a stay and held the appellate court erred in exercising fresh discretion on allegedly new facts that did not substantially affect the original decision.