Neena Sharma

The government of British Columbia enacted the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act in response to a health care crisis.

Part 2 of the Act introduced changes to transfers, contracting out, layoffs, and bumping rights, invalidating provisions of existing collective agreements and precluding future collective bargaining on these issues.

The appellants challenged the legislation under ss. 2(d) and 15 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 2(d) protects a procedural right to collective bargaining, overruling previous jurisprudence.

The Court found that ss. 6(2), 6(4), and 9 of the Act substantially interfered with this right and were not justified under s. 1 because they were not minimally impairing.

The Court dismissed the s. 15 equality claim, finding the distinctions were based on employment sector rather than personal characteristics.

The respondent's liquor licence was suspended by the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch.

The respondent appealed to the Liquor Appeal Board, which upheld the suspension.

The Court of Appeal set aside the Board's decision, finding that its members lacked sufficient independence because they were appointed 'at pleasure'.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the degree of independence required of an administrative tribunal is determined by its enabling statute.

Since the legislature unequivocally provided for 'at pleasure' appointments, there was no room to import common law doctrines of independence.