Background
The provincial Newfoundland and Labrador government entered a pay equity agreement with the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees (N.A.P.E.) in 1988 which adjusted the wages for hospital employees in areas that were typically staffed by women to be comparable to salaries earned by male-dominated positions. The agreement specified that the wages would be increased over a five-year period ending in 1992.
Newfoundland and Labrador is the most easterly province of Canada. Situated in the country's Atlantic region, it comprises the island of Newfoundland and mainland Labrador to the northwest, with a combined area of 405,212 square kilometres (156,500 sq mi). In 2018, the province's population was estimated at 525,073. About 92% of the province's population lives on the island of Newfoundland, of whom more than half live on the Avalon Peninsula.
In 1991, however, the provincial government had a $120 million deficit and was undergoing a significant financial crisis. Consequently, they enacted legislation that would cancel the agreement and would retroactively cancel the arrears already owed to the employees from the previous three years which amounted to about $24 million.
The union began an action against the government on the basis that the legislation discriminated against women and violated section 15(1) of the Charter.
An arbitration board found in favour of the union, ruling that section 15 was violated as the law discriminated against women employees by subjecting them to a larger share of the brunt of the cuts. The further found that it could not be saved under section 1 because the government failed to consider more minimally impairing means to find the money.
The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court overturned the board. A violation of section 15 was found but that it was a reasonable limitation to the rights of the workers under section 1. The judge stated that when balancing the rights between different groups in society, deference should be given to the government.
The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the Newfoundland Supreme Court.
The issue before the Supreme Court of Canada was whether the lower courts erred in their ruling that the violation was within the reasonable limits of section 1. In a unanimous decision the appeal was dismissed.
Reasons
The ruling of the unanimous court was given by Justice Binnie. He agreed with the lower court's ruling that the legislation had the effect of disproportionately harming women, and that it was a violation section 15(1) of the Charter.
Concerning section 1, Binnie found that the legislation was reasonable limitation on the rights of workers. He rejected the union's argument that financial circumstances can never be the basis of a limitation of rights, rather where there are exceptional circumstances, such as a financial crisis, "elected governments must be accorded significant scope to take remedial measures, even if the measures taken have an adverse effect on a Charter right." However, Binnie made sure to distinguish a previous observation made earlier in Nova Scotia v. Martin (2003), where it was stated that "budgetary considerations in and of themselves cannot normally be invoked as a free-standing pressing and substantial objective for the purposes of s.1 of the Charter".
It was noted that the government was under considerable pressure and had cut costs in many areas. The government cut school funding, froze wages, closed hospital beds, and laid off thousands of employees. Consequently, Binnie observed that all these actions of the government indicated a fiscal crisis that would amount to a "pressing and substantial objective".
- the financial health of the province is the golden goose on which all else relies. The government in 1991 was not just debating rights versus dollars, but rights versus hospital beds, rights versus layoffs, rights versus jobs, rights versus education and rights versus social welfare. The requirement to reduce expenditures, and the allocation of the necessary cuts, was undertaken to promote other values of a free and democratic society.
In considering the degree of impairment of equality rights, Binnie found that the impairment was not more than necessary as the cuts for the $24 million would have had to be taken from elsewhere and would likely have caused "even greater grief and social disruption." When asking whether the legislation impairs as little as possible, noted Binnie, the consequences for other social, educational, and economic programs must be taken into account.
Consequently, though the violation was serious and regrettable, Binnie found that it must be justified under section 1 of the Charter.
R v Oakes, [1986] 1 SCR 103 is a case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada which established the famous Oakes test, an analysis of the limitations clause (section 1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that allows reasonable limitations on rights and freedoms through legislation if it can be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".
R v Morgentaler, [1988] 1 SCR 30 was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code was unconstitutional because it violated a woman's right under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") to security of person. Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating abortion in Canada.
McKinney v University of Guelph [1990] 3 SCR 229 is the Supreme Court of Canada case that decided that, for the purpose of determining the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, universities were not part of government. Therefore, the mandatory retirement age for university teachers did not violate equality rights under section 15 of the Charter. In reaching this holding, the Court refined the scope of the Charter as it applies to government bodies as well as the definition of "law" within the ambit of the Charter.
Vriend v Alberta [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493 is an important Supreme Court of Canada case that determined that a legislative omission can be the subject of a Charter violation. The case involved a dismissal of a teacher because of his sexual orientation and was an issue of great controversy during that period.
Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section that confirms that the rights listed in the Charter are guaranteed. The section is also known as the reasonable limits clause or limitations clause, as it legally allows the government to limit an individual's Charter rights. This limitation on rights has been used in the last twenty years to prevent a variety of objectionable conduct such as hate speech and obscenity.
Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") is the section of the Constitution of Canada that lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically applying to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or corporation. These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the courts. The fundamental freedoms are freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.
Chaoulli v Quebec (AG) [2005] 1 S.C.R. 791, 2005 SCC 35,
was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada of which the Court ruled that the Quebec Health Insurance Act and the Hospital Insurance Act prohibiting private medical insurance in the face of long wait times violated the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. In a 4 to 3 decision, the Court found the Acts violated Quebecers' right to life and security of person under the Quebec Charter. The ruling is binding only in Quebec. Three of the seven judges also found that the laws violated section seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One judge did not rule on the Canadian Charter. The result was a 3–3 tie on the question of the Canadian Charter, so Chaoulli decision does not apply to any other province.
Gosselin v Quebec (AG) [2002] 4 SCR 429, 2002 SCC 84, is the first claim under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to a right to an adequate level of social assistance. The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the Charter challenge against a Quebec law excluding citizens under age 30 from receiving full social security benefits.
Freedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference.
R v Edwards Books and Art Ltd [1986] 2 SCR 713 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the constitutional validity of an Ontario provincial Sunday closing law. The Court found that the legislation was within the power of the province to legislate but it was in violation of the right to freedom of religion under section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). However, it could be saved under section 1.
British Columbia v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 473, 2005 SCC 49, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court found that the provincial Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, which allowed the government to sue tobacco companies, was constitutionally valid. Imperial Tobacco Canada is an indirect subsidiary of British American Tobacco.
Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v Canada [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120, 2000 SCC 69 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on freedom of expression and equality rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was held that the Customs Act, which gave broad powers to customs inspectors to exclude "obscene" materials, violated the right to freedom of expression under section 2 but was justifiable under section 1.
Miron v Trudel, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418 is a famous Supreme Court of Canada decision on equality rights under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms where the Court found "marital status" was an analogous ground for discrimination. The Court held that an insurance benefit provided only to married couples discriminated against common-law couples.
Dunmore v Ontario (AG), 2001 SCC 94 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the constitutional right to freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The Court held that the lack of a positive framework that protected farm workers from employer reprisals for exercising their associational rights under the Charter constituted a "substantial interference" of their right to freedom of association. The Ontario government responded with the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, which extended only to agricultural workers and prohibited employer reprisals against employees exercising their rights under section 2(d) of the Charter.
Section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, found under the "Legal rights" heading in the Charter, guarantees the right against arbitrary detainment and imprisonment.
Section nine states:
R v Suberu 2009 SCC 33 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 9 and section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court applied the new test for detention created in the companion case of R v Grant and ruled on the timing of when an individual is required to be informed of his or her rights to counsel after being arrested or detained.
R v Kang-Brown, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 456, 2008 SCC 18, is a constitutional decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the limits of police powers for search and seizure. The Court found that police do not have the right to perform a sniffer-dog search of public spaces when such search is not specifically authorized by statute. In this case, a suspect's section 8 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") were violated when a police officer stopped him at a bus station and sniffer-dog searched his bag finding drugs in his possession.
The passage of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 allowed for the provision of challenging the constitutionality of laws governing prostitution law in Canada in addition to interpretative case law. Other legal proceedings have dealt with ultra vires issues. In 2013, three provisions of the current law were overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, with a twelve-month stay of effect. In June 2014, the Government introduced amending legislation in response.
R v Tse, 2012 SCC 16 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding the constitutionality of warrant-less wiretaps in emergency situations. The Court found that the emergency wiretap provisions found in section 184.4 of the Criminal Code infringes the search and seizure rights in section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and cannot be justified as a reasonable limitation under section 1 of the Charter due to the lack of accountability measures. In addition to the two parties to the case, the Court heard from the following interveners: the Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General of Ontario, the Attorney General of Quebec, the Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario), the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. The unanimous decision of the Court was the first Supreme Court of Canada decision written by Moldaver and Karakatsanis JJ.
