Yves L. J. Fricot

The employer and the intervenor union sought reconsideration of a Board decision that set the voter eligibility date for a representation vote as the date of the applicant union's certification application.

The employer argued that 27 employees hired after the application date should be permitted to vote, as they had been in a previous vote involving the intervenor.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the employer had been explicitly invited to make submissions on voter eligibility prior to the vote being ordered but had failed to do so.

The Board concluded there was no reason to depart from its normal practice of using the application date for voter eligibility, and ordered that the 27 segregated ballots not be counted.

A certificate was issued to the applicant union.

The appellant was charged with failing to comply with a roadside breath demand under s. 234.1 of the Criminal Code.

He argued the provision was inoperative because it had not been proclaimed in force in all provinces, allegedly violating equality before the law under the Canadian Bill of Rights and s. 7 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the non-universal application was justified by a valid federal objective related to provincial law enforcement priorities and resources.

The Court also held that s. 7 of the Charter could not be used to bypass the delayed implementation of equality rights under s. 15.