Employment and Labour Law - SCC

Appeal from a labour arbitration ruling concerning dismissals of legislative security guards and claimed parliamentary privilege over employee management and exclusion of strangers.

The majority held the claimed immunity from external labour review was not shown to be necessary to the legislature’s constitutional functions, so the grievances could proceed.

A concurring set of reasons found the governing provincial statute dispositive because the legislature had subjected employee management to that regime absent a derogation.

The dissent would have found privilege established and would have barred arbitral jurisdiction.

On a constitutional appeal concerning Quebec pay equity legislation, the appellants challenged a six-year delay in access to pay equity adjustments for predominantly female workplaces without male comparators under s. 38 of the Pay Equity Act.

The Court split on whether the delay infringed s. 15(1) of the Charter, with one set of reasons finding an infringement and another finding no discriminatory distinction or impact.

A majority result nonetheless upheld the provision because the appeal failed overall, and the challenged section remained valid.

The reasons address substantive equality, comparator methodology, and whether implementation delay in a complex remedial regime can be justified under s. 1.

This constitutional appeal concerned amendments to a provincial pay equity regime addressing systemic wage discrimination affecting predominantly female job classes.

The court held that provisions delaying and limiting compensation adjustments until periodic audit postings, and restricting retroactive adjustments before posting, infringed equality rights under section 15(1) of the Charter.

The majority found the scheme effectively tolerated periods of uncompensated inequity and was not justified under section 1.

The cross-appeal challenging repeal provisions failed for lack of proof of unconstitutionality.

In a civil procedure appeal, the appellants challenged orders permitting amendment of a statement of claim through a representation order after expiry of a limitation period.

The central issue was whether the order improperly added parties or merely corrected the naming of the legal entity represented by previously named individuals.

A majority held the request was properly treated as correction of a misnamed party, with members having notice before the limitation deadline and no demonstrated prejudice after extensive participation in the litigation.

The appeal was dismissed, with one dissenting judge who would have allowed it.

The Court considered whether Quebec’s workplace injury regime must be interpreted and applied with the employer’s duty to reasonably accommodate disabled workers under the provincial charter.

It held that workers disabled by workplace injury are entitled to accommodation protections when rights to return to work and suitable employment are assessed.

The appeal was dismissed and the matter was remitted to the Administrative Labour Tribunal for reconsideration with accommodation obligations in view.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and held that section 13(1)(b) of British Columbia’s Human Rights Code can apply to discriminatory conduct by a co-worker who is not the complainant’s employer or superior, if the conduct has a sufficient nexus to the employment context.

The majority adopted a contextual test focused on workplace integration, location of conduct, and workplace impact, and restored the tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

Concurring reasons emphasized established human rights principles and workplace impact, while the dissent would have limited section 13(1)(b) to employer-employee or analogous relationships.

The Court allowed the appeal in part in a labour grievance over mandatory after-hour standby duties for federal immigration lawyers.

The majority held the adjudicator reasonably found the directive was not a fair and reasonable exercise of management rights under the collective agreement, so that portion of the adjudicator’s order was restored.

However, the Court agreed the directive did not infringe section 7 liberty interests, because the impacts on personal time did not engage fundamental personal choices protected by the Charter.

The Court dismissed an appeal from Alberta human rights proceedings concerning termination under a safety policy requiring pre-incident disclosure of drug dependence or addiction issues.

A majority held the tribunal reasonably found the employee was terminated for breaching the policy rather than because of addiction, so prima facie discrimination was not established.

Concurring judges would have found prima facie discrimination but still upheld the outcome on accommodation to undue hardship.

The dissent would have allowed the appeal, finding both prima facie discrimination and inadequate accommodation.

The Court considered an appeal arising during an indefinite strike by members of Les avocats et notaires de l’État québécois, where an adjournment request had been refused as part of an essential-services context.

By the hearing date, the strike had ended and a special statute had required a return to work.

The Court held the issue was moot and dismissed the appeal without costs.

It stated that dismissing the appeal did not endorse either the process used or the validity of the considerations identified by the Court of Appeal.

In a constitutional labour appeal, the appellant challenged provincial legislation that nullified certain collective agreement terms and barred similar terms from being renegotiated until a specified date.

The central issue was whether the legislative scheme violated freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter and whether any infringement was justified under s. 1.

The appellate court below had upheld the legislation on the basis of meaningful pre-legislative consultation and good faith dealings.

The Court allowed the appeal, substantially adopting the dissenting appellate reasons that found unconstitutional interference with collective bargaining protections.

In an employment appeal, a non-unionized federally regulated employee challenged a without-cause dismissal under the unjust dismissal provisions of the Canada Labour Code.

The adjudicator held that severance in lieu could not displace the statutory requirement to assess whether the dismissal was unjust, and allowed the complaint.

The majority restored that decision, concluding the adjudicator's interpretation was reasonable and consistent with the statutory purpose and dominant adjudicative approach under ss. 240-246.

The court held the scheme protects eligible non-unionized employees from dismissal without cause and supports meaningful remedies, including reinstatement.

In a labour arbitration context, a public-sector employer challenged an interlocutory ruling permitting examination of executive committee members on in camera deliberations leading to a teacher’s dismissal.

The Court held that reasonableness was the applicable review standard and upheld the arbitrator’s evidentiary ruling.

It concluded that the doctrine that legislative motives are unknowable and deliberative secrecy did not bar the proposed examinations in this contractual employment-dismissal setting.

The appeal was dismissed with costs and the grievance inquiry was remanded to proceed.

The Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was constructively dismissed when he was indefinitely suspended with pay without adequate justification, and that his pension benefits were not deductible from wrongful dismissal damages.

This constitutional labour appeal addressed whether a statutory prohibition on designated essential-services employees striking substantially interfered with meaningful collective bargaining under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The Court held that the right to strike is an indispensable component of meaningful collective bargaining, and that the statutory scheme’s unilateral employer designations and lack of a meaningful impasse-resolution substitute rendered the infringement unjustified under s. 1.

The declaration of invalidity concerning the essential-services regime was suspended for one year.

The companion challenge to amendments governing union certification, decertification, and employer communications was dismissed.

RCMP members challenged federal wage restraint measures, arguing that rollback of agreed wage increases without prior consultation violated freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The majority held the Expenditure Restraint Act did not substantially interfere with the existing consultation process and dismissed the appeal, while a dissent found unconstitutional unilateral interference.