Pierre-André Côté

The respondent real estate broker charged vendors a non-refundable membership fee in addition to a commission if the property sold.

The discipline committee found this practice violated the Real Estate Brokerage Act, which requires a sale before a broker is entitled to compensation.

The Court of Appeal set aside the decision, finding the provisions were not mandatory.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, applying a reasonableness standard to the discipline committee's decision.

The Court held that the legislation is designed to protect consumers and explicitly restricts freedom of contract by making the compensation clause, which ties payment to a sale, a mandatory requirement.

The appellant Commission claimed $67,014.99 from the respondent transit commission, representing the difference between wages paid to the respondent's employees under a collective agreement and the amounts required by the Construction Decree for renovation work done on the respondent's buildings.

The lower courts dismissed the claim, holding that the Construction Industry Labour Relations Act did not apply to mass transit employers and that the employees received a 'total wage' greater than the Decree's requirements.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the Act's application depends on the nature of the work done (construction) rather than the employer's primary industry.

The Court also rejected the 'total wage' concept, ruling that the Decree is a matter of public order and its specific minimum conditions cannot be offset by other benefits provided in a collective agreement.