David R. Wright

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 applicant regulator sought declarations that the Law Society Act licensing requirements for paralegals apply to provincial Crown employees providing legal services, including those advising or representing workers in employer reprisal matters under s. 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The union argued that the Crown was immune from the Act and alternatively that a by-law exemption applicable to legal services under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act extended to these matters.

The court held that although the statute does not expressly bind the Crown, it does so by necessary implication because the Act’s purpose is to protect the public through licensing of legal service providers.

Allowing Crown employees to provide legal services without licensing would frustrate that purpose and produce an absurd regulatory gap.

The court further held that the by-law exemption is limited to services relating to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act and does not extend to Occupational Health and Safety Act reprisal proceedings.

The applicant ministry sought judicial review of an order of the Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring disclosure of the full names of Family Responsibility Office employees contained in a requester’s file.

The ministry argued the information was excluded from disclosure under s. 65(6)3 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as relating to labour relations matters, or alternatively exempt under ss. 14(1)(e) and 20 due to safety concerns.

The Divisional Court held the IPC reasonably concluded the records were created in the course of the institution’s operational mandate rather than about labour relations, and therefore were not excluded from the Act.

The court also found no evidence that disclosure to the requester posed a safety risk to the employees and determined that compliance with the IPC order would not conflict with a prior Grievance Settlement Board order governing employee identification practices.