Employment and Labour Law - SCC

The respondent failed to serve and file its factum within the prescribed time, resulting in its appeal being deemed abandoned under the Code of Civil Procedure.

The respondent applied to the Court of Appeal to rectify the abandonment, citing a technical error by counsel.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court held, following its concurrent decision in Construction Gilles Paquette ltée, that the Court of Appeal has the general power to rectify such an abandonment to safeguard the parties' rights where the error is technical and causes no prejudice.

The appeal was allowed solely to amend the Court of Appeal's order, finding that special leave to appeal was unnecessary to reinstate the appeal.

The appellant city hired a temporary employee through a personnel agency.

The respondent union sought to have the employee included in its bargaining unit, arguing the city was the real employer.

The Labour Court found that the city was the real employer based on its control over the employee's working conditions and day-to-day work.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Labour Court's decision was not patently unreasonable, affirming that a comprehensive approach considering multiple factors is appropriate for identifying the real employer in a tripartite relationship.

The appellant challenged a Quebec Court of Appeal decision upholding dismissal of his action for damages after his employer eliminated his regional manager role during restructuring and offered him management of a single underperforming branch without a guaranteed base salary.

The Supreme Court held that under Quebec civil law, constructive dismissal occurs where an employer unilaterally imposes substantial changes to the essential terms of employment, assessed objectively from the standpoint of a reasonable person at the time of the offer.

The Court found the offer constituted a significant demotion and materially undermined the employee's financial security, and that post-offer sales evidence was irrelevant because those results were not reasonably foreseeable when the offer was made.

The appeal was allowed and one year's remuneration in lieu of notice was fixed at $150,000, with interest, additional indemnity and costs.

The City of Montreal requested the intervention of the Conseil des services essentiels after the union instructed its members to refuse to work overtime during a holiday weekend.

The Council ordered the union and its members to report to work for regular and overtime hours as requested.

The union sought judicial review, arguing the Council exceeded its jurisdiction and violated natural justice by failing to record the hearing.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Council acted within its specialized jurisdiction in making the remedial order to protect public services, and the order was not patently unreasonable.

The Court also found that the lack of a transcript did not violate natural justice as the reviewing judge had an adequate record.

The appellant Board of Education discharged a teacher after he wrote abusive and threatening letters to the Board's administration.

The teacher grieved the dismissal, and a majority of the arbitration board ordered his conditional reinstatement, finding his conduct was temporary due to stress.

The Divisional Court quashed the award, but the Court of Appeal restored it.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court held that the arbitration board's decision was patently unreasonable.

The evidence overwhelmingly showed the teacher's conduct was not temporary and that he was unfit to return to the classroom.

The appeal was allowed and the arbitration award quashed.

The appellants, airline pilots forced to retire at age 60, filed complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission alleging age discrimination.

The Commission dismissed the complaints because the Canadian Human Rights Act provided an exception for mandatory retirement at the normal industry age.

The appellants sought judicial review, arguing the exception violated the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that neither the Commission nor a tribunal appointed by it has the jurisdiction to determine the constitutional validity of its enabling statute, as Parliament did not grant them the power to determine general questions of law.

The appellant employer provided an income replacement insurance policy that terminated benefits for mentally disabled employees after two years unless they were institutionalized, while physically disabled employees received benefits until age 65 regardless of institutionalization.

The respondent, who became mentally disabled, filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the insurance plan discriminated on the basis of mental disability contrary to s. 16(1) of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, as the true purpose of the plan was to insure against the income-related consequences of disability generally, making the distinction between mental and physical disabilities discriminatory.

The employer changed the work schedule of its employees, resulting in the loss of Sunday rest days.

The union filed a grievance and sought an interim injunction from the British Columbia Supreme Court to postpone the implementation of the new schedule pending arbitration.

The employer appealed the court's jurisdiction to issue the injunction.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that courts retain a residual discretionary power to grant interlocutory relief where no adequate alternative remedy exists under the statutory labour scheme, even in the absence of a cause of action claiming final relief.

The union applied to the Canada Labour Relations Board for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit of foremen employed by the appellant.

The Board rejected the application, finding that the appropriate unit consisted of all foremen employed by all members of the employers' association.

The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the Board's decision, concluding it acted outside its jurisdiction by effectively imposing a multi-employer unit without the union's consent.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the Board had jurisdiction to determine the appropriate bargaining unit and to suggest a different composition.

The Court found the Board's decision was not patently unreasonable given its expertise and the need for industrial stability.

The appellant alleged workplace and sexual harassment, obtained workers’ compensation benefits for an employment injury under Quebec’s no-fault compensation regime, and also sought compensatory and exemplary damages under the Quebec Charter.

The majority held that the remedy in s. 49 of the Charter is a civil liability remedy, including the exemplary damages component, and that s. 438 of the Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases bars such actions against the employer once the same events have been compensated as an employment injury.

The Court emphasized that the statutory compensation scheme is a final compromise replacing fault-based civil recourse with fixed-sum benefits and employer immunity.

The appeal and the respondents’ cross-appeal were dismissed, with La Forest and L'Heureux‑Dubé JJ. dissenting in part on the availability of exemplary damages and arbitral forum.

The employer posted a position for a personal care attendant but rejected a female union member's application because it had determined a male was needed for the intimate personal care of elderly male residents.

The collective agreement contained a no-discrimination clause without a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) exception, whereas the provincial Human Rights Code included a BFOQ provision.

An arbitration board held that the employer could rely on the BFOQ provision, finding that the parties could not contract out of the Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while parties can contract out of human rights legislation to provide greater protection, the arbitration board's interpretation that the collective agreement should be read in harmony with the Code's BFOQ provision was not patently unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

A public school teacher publicly made anti-Semitic statements during his off-duty time.

A Jewish parent filed a human rights complaint alleging the school board discriminated by failing to discipline the teacher, thereby condoning his views and creating a poisoned educational environment.

The human rights board of inquiry found discrimination and ordered the school board to place the teacher on leave, appoint him to a non-teaching position if available, or terminate his employment, and to terminate him immediately if he published anti-Semitic materials in the future.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the school board discriminated and that the order to remove the teacher from his teaching position infringed his freedom of expression and religion but was justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

However, the permanent ban on publishing was not minimally impairing and was severed.

The appellant employer and respondent union were engaged in a bitter, 18-month strike marked by violence.

The employer refused to negotiate a grievance arbitration process for employees dismissed for picket-line violence, making it a precondition to further bargaining.

The Canada Labour Relations Board found this constituted a failure to bargain in good faith and ordered the employer to table its previous tentative agreement, with four unresolved issues subject to binding mediation.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Board's decision, finding that the determination of bad faith bargaining was within the Board's specialized jurisdiction and not patently unreasonable.

The Court also held that the Board's broad remedial order under s. 99(2) of the Canada Labour Code was rationally connected to the breach and necessary to counteract the consequences of the employer's intransigence, thus not exceeding its jurisdiction.

The appellant accepted an offer of employment but the employer cancelled the contract before the appellant was obliged to provide services.

The parties settled for $400,000.

The Minister of National Revenue assessed the damages as a taxable 'retiring allowance'.

The Tax Court of Canada set aside the assessment, finding the damages were not a retiring allowance nor income from employment.

The Federal Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge's findings of fact on apportionment and held the damages were taxable as income from employment.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the Federal Court of Appeal erred in overturning the trial judge's findings of fact.

The Court further held that the damages were not a 'retiring allowance' because the appellant had not yet commenced employment, and they were not taxable under the general provision of s. 3(a) of the Income Tax Act.

The respondent, a police officer, was forced to retire at age 60 pursuant to a mandatory retirement policy in the collective agreement.

He filed a human rights complaint alleging age discrimination.

The Board of Inquiry found the policy was not a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) because the employer lacked a sincerely held belief in its necessity at the time of adoption, and because individual accommodation was possible.

The Divisional Court and Court of Appeal upheld this decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the subjective element of the BFOR test can be satisfied where a policy is adopted in good faith through collective bargaining without ulterior motives.

The Court also held that the objective element does not require individual accommodation where a general rule is reasonably necessary and individual testing is impractical.

The mandatory retirement policy was justified as a BFOR.

The appellant, a tenured professor, sued the University of Regina for breach of contract.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal substantially for the reasons of the dissenting judge in the Court of Appeal.

The Court set aside the Court of Appeal's judgment and entered judgment in favour of the appellant in the amount of $208,872.66, with costs throughout.

The appellant company dismissed an employee for chronic absenteeism caused by alcoholism.

The employee subsequently underwent successful treatment.

The arbitrator found the dismissal was justified at the time it was made, but relied on the subsequent successful treatment to annul the dismissal and reinstate the employee.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by relying on subsequent-event evidence to annul a dismissal that was justified at the time it was implemented.

The appeal was allowed and the arbitrator's decision was quashed.

The appellant employee was suspended for abusing sick leave benefits after the employer hired private investigators who gained entry to his home under false pretenses.

The employee filed grievances under the collective agreement and also commenced a court action for torts and Charter breaches.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the mandatory arbitration clause in the Labour Relations Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on labour arbitrators for all disputes arising from the collective agreement.

The Court concluded that both the tort and Charter claims arose from the administration of the collective agreement, and that the arbitrator was a court of competent jurisdiction empowered to grant Charter remedies, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the courts.

The appellant employee allegedly drove the employer's leased vehicle with a flat tire, causing damage.

The employer brought a civil action for negligence to recover repair costs.

The appellant moved to strike the claim, arguing the dispute arose out of the collective agreement and was subject to exclusive arbitration under the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, applying the concurrent decision in Weber v. Ontario Hydro.

The Court held that the essential character of the dispute concerned the preservation of employer property, which inferentially fell under the collective agreement, thereby depriving the courts of jurisdiction.

The appellant union sought judicial review of a CRTC decision regarding who could perform installation work on a telephone company's support structures, arguing it was denied natural justice because it did not receive notice of the proceedings.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the union's interest in the telecommunications policy decision was purely indirect and did not trigger the audi alteram partem rule.

Furthermore, the Court found that the governing statute placed the obligation to notify employees on the employer, not the CRTC, and that the CRTC did not err by failing to defer to labour arbitration board decisions.