Eric A. Bowie

The appeal concerned whether the federal government remained constitutionally bound to ensure operation of passenger rail service on the Victoria to Nanaimo portion of the Vancouver Island railway, whether continuous-operation language in historic railway agreements had statutory force overriding general railway legislation, and whether an Order-in-Council discontinuing service on another portion of the line was ultra vires after a missed five-year reconsideration.

The majority held that Term 11 of the British Columbia Terms of Union imposed only a construction obligation, not an operational one, and that later political arrangements could not themselves attain constitutional status absent grounding in the constitutional text.

The majority further held that the Dunsmuir Agreement was ratified but not incorporated into federal legislation as a statutory obligation, and that a 1912 provincial enactment could not impose an operational statutory duty on a federally regulated railway.

On the administrative issue, the majority held that the continuation order did not lapse for want of timely reconsideration and remained capable of variation under s. 64 of the National Transportation Act, 1987.

The appeal was allowed, with two judges dissenting.

The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of the Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986, arguing that the back-to-work legislation violated their freedom of association under section 2(d) and their right to liberty under section 7 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that earlier jurisprudence limiting the scope of freedom of association regarding the right to strike also applied to the right to liberty under section 7.

The Court further held that the penalty attached to the refusal to return to work was a strict liability offence intended to enforce the regulatory scheme.

The federal government approved a Work Force Adjustment Policy, incorporated into the master collective agreement with the respondent union.

The Policy required departments to review and terminate contracted services to facilitate redeployment of surplus employees.

To reduce person-years, the Department of National Revenue contracted out the work of 270 data processors.

The union filed a reference under s. 99 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, alleging the contracting out violated the Policy.

The Public Service Staff Relations Board found it had jurisdiction and ruled in the union's favour.

The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board correctly assumed jurisdiction under s. 99 because the obligation was owed to the bargaining unit as a whole, and its interpretation of the Policy was not patently unreasonable.

The respondent, a recipient of social assistance in Manitoba, challenged the province's practice of making deductions from his monthly allowance to recover past overpayments, arguing it violated the federal Canada Assistance Plan (CAP).

He also challenged Manitoba's practice of allowing municipalities to set their own social assistance rates.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that CAP requires provinces to provide assistance in an amount compatible with an individual's basic requirements, but does not prohibit the recovery of overpayments, provided such deductions do not cause undue hardship.

The Court also held that CAP permits municipalities to set assistance rates, provided the province establishes the criteria for determining persons in need.

The appeal by the federal government was allowed.