Rosalie Abella

The appeal concerned a constitutional challenge to Ontario’s separate labour relations regime for agricultural workers.

The Court held that s. 2(d) of the Charter protects a meaningful process of collective action toward workplace goals, including employee representations that employers must consider in good faith, but does not constitutionalize any particular model of labour relations.

The majority interpreted the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, 2002 as implicitly requiring good faith consideration of employee representations and concluded that the claimants had not established that the statutory scheme made meaningful association effectively impossible.

The s. 15 challenge also failed because the record did not establish substantive discrimination, and the claim was premature.

Appeal concerning whether a mining project in the James Bay Territory, approved under the environmental assessment regime in a modern treaty, was nevertheless subject to a further federal environmental assessment before a fisheries authorization could issue.

The majority held that the treaty is protected by s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, but does not exclude the operation of federal laws of general application requiring CEAA compliance before issuance of a Fisheries Act permit.

The treaty's single-review provision governed internal treaty review processes only and did not eliminate the proponent's obligation to obtain necessary post-approval federal permits.

The Court varied the Court of Appeal's order to confirm that any fisheries authorization must comply with CEAA procedures and the Crown's duty to consult.

The Crown appealed from an order granting a new trial following an aggravated assault conviction arising from a gang attack.

The Supreme Court agreed that the jury charge on the defence theory was inadequate and that a new trial was required.

On the fresh evidence issue, the majority held that issue estoppel remains part of Canadian criminal law but is confined to preventing the Crown from relitigating issues previously determined in the accused’s favour, including findings grounded in reasonable doubt.

The Court rejected the contention that a later acquittal on an obstruction charge retrospectively rendered post-offence phone call evidence inadmissible in the earlier trial.