Professor Judy Fudge

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a motion to certify a class action on behalf of CIBC customer service employees for unpaid overtime.

The motion judge and Divisional Court had found it plain and obvious that CIBC's policy requiring pre-approval for overtime complied with the Canada Labour Code, and that individual issues predominated.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that it was arguable the pre-approval requirement violated the Code's mandate to pay for overtime 'required or permitted' by the employer.

The Court also found some basis in fact that CIBC's systemic practices breached employment contracts, satisfying the common issues requirement for certification.

The appellants challenged the constitutionality of the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, 2002, arguing it violated their rights under sections 2(d) and 15 of the Charter by excluding agricultural workers from the Labour Relations Act and failing to provide statutory protections for collective bargaining.

The Court of Appeal held that the Act violates section 2(d) by substantially impairing the ability of agricultural workers to engage in meaningful collective bargaining, as it lacks a duty to bargain in good faith, recognition of majoritarian exclusivity, and dispute resolution mechanisms.

The court dismissed the section 15 claim, finding no discrimination on an analogous ground.

The section 2(d) violation was not saved under section 1, as the wholesale exclusion of agricultural workers was not rationally connected to the objective of protecting the family farm and did not minimally impair the right.

The Act was declared invalid, with the declaration suspended for 12 months.

The appellants challenged Ontario legislation repealing agricultural labour protections and excluding agricultural workers from the statutory labour relations regime.

The majority held that, in the labour relations context, freedom of association under s. 2(d) may impose a positive obligation where exclusion from protective legislation substantially interferes with the ability of a vulnerable group to organize.

The Court found that the exclusion of agricultural workers from the LRA substantially impeded their capacity to form and maintain employee associations and created a chilling effect on associational activity.

The infringement was not justified under s. 1 because the wholesale exclusion was overly broad and failed minimum impairment.

The appeal was allowed and the declarations of invalidity were suspended for 18 months.