Roy L. Heenan

The appellant's union was certified to represent employees at a Wal-Mart store in Jonquière.

On the day the Minister of Labour referred the dispute over a first collective agreement to arbitration, Wal-Mart announced the store's closure.

The appellant filed a complaint under ss. 15 to 17 of the Quebec Labour Code, claiming he lost his employment due to union activities and seeking reinstatement.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the procedural vehicle and statutory presumption under ss. 15 to 17 are not available where a workplace no longer exists.

A definitive business closure constitutes 'good and sufficient reason' for dismissal under s. 17, and any remedy for a closure motivated by anti-union animus must be sought under the unfair labour practice provisions in ss. 12 to 14.

The appellants were employees at a Wal-Mart store that closed shortly after a union was certified and an arbitrator was appointed to resolve collective agreement differences.

The employees filed complaints under the Labour Code alleging they were dismissed due to union activities and sought reinstatement.

The Commission des relations du travail initially found the employer failed to prove the closure was definitive, but in a companion case, it was established that the store was permanently closed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that since the store was permanently closed, reinstatement was impossible and the substratum of the claim no longer existed.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees filed a pay equity complaint alleging that the employer discriminated against flight attendants, a predominantly female group, by paying them less than mechanics and pilots, who are predominantly male.

The employer argued that the groups belonged to different establishments because they were in separate bargaining units with different collective agreements.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the three groups belong to the same establishment because they are subject to a common personnel and wage policy, regardless of differences in their collective agreements.

The appeal was dismissed and the matter remitted to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to continue its investigation.

The appellant challenged the institutional independence and impartiality of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, arguing that the Canadian Human Rights Commission's power to issue binding guidelines and the Tribunal Chairperson's power to extend members' terms compromised procedural fairness.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal's main function is adjudicative but it also serves to implement government policy, warranting a lower standard of independence than a court.

The Court found that the guideline power is a form of law that does not fetter the Tribunal improperly, and the power to extend appointments does not threaten security of tenure or impartiality.