Ontario v Fraser

Last updated

Ontario v Fraser
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: December 17, 2009
Judgment: April 29, 2011
Full case nameOntario (Attorney General) v Fraser
Citations [2011] 2 SCR 3, 2011 SCC 20
Prior historyOn appeal from the Ontario Court of Appeal
RulingAppeal by the Attorney General of Ontario allowed, action dismissed
Holding
Government action that makes good-faith collective bargaining effectively impossible will substantially interfere with freedom of association, infringing section 2(d) of the Charter
Court membership
Chief Justice McLachlin CJ
Puisne Justices Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ
Reasons given
MajorityMcLachlin CJ and LeBel J, joined by Binnie, Fish and Cromwell JJ
ConcurrenceRothstein J, joined by Charron J
ConcurrenceDeschamps J
DissentAbella J
Laws applied
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(d)

Ontario (Attorney General) v Fraser [2011] 2 SCR 3 is a Canadian labour law case concerning the protection of collective bargaining under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . At issue was an Ontario law that created a separate labour relations regime for agricultural workers. The Court considered the standard for establishing a breach of section 2(d) in cases where government action is alleged to interfere with collective bargaining rights. [1] A majority of the Court upheld the law, finding no breach of sections 2(d) or 15 of the Charter.

Contents

The decision was regarded as significant for clarifying the scope of protection for union activity under the Charter. However, uncertainty persisted, and some observers viewed Fraser as narrowing the scope of protection for collective bargaining.

Background

The interpretation of section 2(d) underwent significant evolution in the years prior to Fraser. Beginning with the Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta), the Supreme Court construed freedom of association as an individual right; in that case, the SCC indicated that collective bargaining was not subject to constitutional protection. [2]

Dunmore v Ontario (AG) was decided in 2001, and introduced broader protections for collective action by employees. In Dunmore, the SCC focused the section 2(d) analysis on whether the government action at issue "discourag[ed] the collective pursuit of common goals". The SCC in that case struck down an Ontario law which excluded agricultural workers from collective bargaining. [3]

In response to Dunmore, the government of Ontario passed new legislation to regulate agricultural labour relations. This legislation did not provide for collective bargaining per se, but allowed for agricultural workers to form employee associations. These associations could "make representations" to the employer, which the employer was obliged to receive and consider. [4]

Individual claimants and the United Food and Commercial Workers brought a constitutional challenge to the new Ontario legislation, arguing that it infringed their rights under section 2(d).

Procedural history

At trial, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the claim. However, the SCC subsequently released its decision in Health Services and Support – Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v British Columbia , significantly revising the interpretation of section 2(d) and expanding the scope of protections under that provision. [4]

An appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal was unanimously allowed, and the trial ruling set aside. Applying BC Health Services, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that the challenged legislation substantially interfered with collective bargaining rights, and that the infringement of section 2(d) could not be justified under section 1 of the Charter. [5]

The Attorney General of Ontario was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which heard arguments in the case on December 17, 2009.

Judgment

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the AGO's appeal, upholding Ontario's law by an 8-1 majority. The Court produced four sets of reasons: a majority opinion, two concurrences, and a dissent. [4]

The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice McLachlin and Justice LeBel. The majority considered calls to overturn BC Health Services, and declined to do so.

The majority proceeded to apply the BC Health Services framework to the Ontario law at issue. Regarding the legal test under section 2(d), the majority stated: "In every case, the question is whether the impugned law or state action has the effect of making it impossible to act collectively to achieve workplace goals." A law that had this effect would infringe section 2(d). However, applying this test, the majority found that the law in question did not infringe the Charter. The majority emphasized that section 2(d) "does not require a particular model of bargaining, nor a particular outcome."

Finding no breach of sections 2(d) or 15 of the Charter, the majority did not consider justification under section 1. The majority also dismissed the claimants' section 15 argument.

Justice Rothstein concurred in the result, and his reasons were joined by Justice Charron. Justice Rothstein stated that BC Health Services was wrongly decided, and called for it to be overturned. He would have declined to recognize any constitutional right to good-faith collective bargaining, and allowed the AGO's appeal on that basis. Justice Rothstein agreed with the majority regarding their disposition of the section 15 argument.

Justice Deschamps filed a separate concurrence. She argued that the majority took too broad a view of BC Health Services, and reiterated her view that section 2(d) of the Charter did not mandate any particular statutory regime for collective bargaining: it merely protected "the freedom to engage in associational activities and the ability of employees to act in common to reach shared goals related to workplace issues and terms of employment." Justice Deschamps also dismissed the section 15 argument.

Justice Abella was the sole dissenter, finding an infringement of section 2(d). She found that the law in question did "not protect, and was never intended to protect, collective bargaining rights." Justice Abella emphasized the uniqueness of agricultural employment, and concluded that the law in question was not minimally impairing: it was "not tailored at all" to the government's objective in passing it, and so it could not be justified under section 1 of the Charter. Justice Abella did not comment on the section 15 argument, but did argue that the majority opinion failed to interpret section 2(d) in light of section 15 equality rights.

Commentary

Writing for TheCourt.ca, Christopher Hunter observed that "Fraser both confuses and clarifies s. 2(d) jurisprudence." He noted the Court's division regarding the "precise meaning of Health Services." [6]

Other commentators described the holding in Fraser as narrowing the scope of protection afforded to collective bargaining under section 2(d). [7] Alison Braley, writing in the McGill Law Journal, was critical of the majority reasons, writing that "Fraser undoubtedly provides a setback for workers' collective bargaining rights in Canada." [8] In the Ottawa Law Review, Professor Brian Langille criticized the logic underpinning the majority's reasons, and the adoption of a "substantial impossibility" test in relation to constitutional rights. [9] Professor Kenneth Thorncroft wrote that the majority "significantly narrowed the scope of Health Services and its expansive view (relative to the “labour trilogy” [lower-alpha 1] ) of Charter-protected associational rights in the context of public sector labour relations." [10]

Hunter, on the other hand, did not see Fraser as indicating a retreat from the "progressive approach" to section 2(d) adopted in Dunmore and BC Health Services. [6]

Subsequent developments

In Mounted Police Association of Ontario v Canada , the SCC revisited its rulings in BC Health Services and Fraser. In that case, a majority of the SCC (Justice Rothstein dissenting) found that the governing test for infringement of section 2(d) was "substantial interference" with collective bargaining rights, and not "impossibility". [1] [11] In dissent, Justice Rothstein concluded that the majority was overturning Fraser, while the majority described its reasons as clarifying the existing test. [12]

Notes

  1. ↑ I.e., the 1987 trilogy of section 2(d) cases including the Alberta Reference .

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms</i> 1982 Canadian constitutional legislation

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, often simply referred to as the Charter in Canada, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada, forming the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all governments in Canada. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The Charter was proclaimed in force by Queen Elizabeth II of Canada on April 17, 1982, as part of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Collective bargaining is a process of negotiation between employers and a group of employees aimed at agreements to regulate working salaries, working conditions, benefits, and other aspects of workers' compensation and rights for workers. The interests of the employees are commonly presented by representatives of a trade union to which the employees belong. A collective agreement reached by these negotiations functions as a labour contract between an employer and one or more unions, and typically establishes terms regarding wage scales, working hours, training, health and safety, overtime, grievance mechanisms, and rights to participate in workplace or company affairs. Such agreements can also include 'productivity bargaining' in which workers agree to changes to working practices in return for higher pay or greater job security.

Sue Rodriguez was a Canadian right-to-die activist. In August 1991, she was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and was given two to five years to live. She ultimately made the decision to end her life and she sought the assistance of a doctor to that end, leading to a legal battle. She lost her case in front of the Supreme Court of Canada, but took her own life with the help of an anonymous doctor on February 12, 1994. She is cited as an important figure in the eventual legalization of medical assistance in dying in Canada.

In Canadian labour law, the Rand formula is a workplace compromise arising from jurisprudence struck between organized labour and employers that guarantees employers industrial stability by requiring all workers affected by a collective agreement to pay dues to the union by mandatory deduction in exchange for the union agreement to "work now, grieve later."

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section: the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice.

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.

<i>Dunmore v Ontario (AG)</i> 2001 Canadian Supreme Court decision on freedom of association

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.

<i>Prostitution Reference</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Reference re ss. 193 & 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (Man.) [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123, commonly known as the Prostitution Reference, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and on prostitution in Canada. Manitoba's Appeal Court had ruled the legislation violated the guarantee of freedom of expression in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, by constraining communication in relation to legal activity. The case was referred to the Supreme court.

<i>Lavigne v Ontario Public Service Employees Union</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Lavigne v Ontario Public Service Employees Union, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Charter.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian labour law</span>

Canadian labour law is that body of law which regulates the rights, restrictions, and obligations of trade unions, workers, and employers in Canada.

<i>Delisle v Canada (Deputy AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Delisle v Canada (Deputy AG), [1999] 2 SCR 989 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the freedom of association guarantee under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court defined the freedom as only applying to individuals and not associations themselves. Accordingly, they found the exclusion of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) from the public services legislation did not violate section 2(d).

<i>Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act</i> (Alta) Judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada

Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta) [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313, commonly referred to as the Alberta Reference, was a leading opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court held that section 2(d) did not include the right to strike. In 2015, Alberta Reference was overruled, with the Court recognizing a right to strike in the Charter.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in Canada</span>

Human rights in Canada have come under increasing public attention and legal protection since World War II. Prior to that time, there were few legal protections for human rights. The protections which did exist focused on specific issues, rather than taking a general approach to human rights.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Joseph Arvay</span> Canadian lawyer (1949–2020)

Joseph James Arvay, was a Canadian lawyer who argued numerous landmark cases involving civil liberties and constitutional rights.

<i>NIL/TU,O Child and Family Services Society v BC Government and Service Employees Union</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

NIL/TU,O Child and Family Services Society v BC Government and Service Employees' Union is a leading Supreme Court of Canada constitutional law case dealing with jurisdiction over labour relations in the context of federalism and Aboriginal rights.

<i>Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan</i>

Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan [2015] 1 SCR 245 is a Canadian labour law case on the right to strike.

<i>Health Services and Support – Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v British Columbia</i> Canadian labour law case

Health Services and Support – Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v British Columbia [2007] 2 SCR 391 is a landmark Canadian labour law case concerning freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A majority of the Supreme Court of Canada determined that the Charter protects a meaningful process of collective bargaining.

<i>R v Advance Cutting & Coring Ltd</i> Canadian labour law case (SCC)

R v Advance Cutting & Coring Ltd. [2001] 3 SCR 209 is a Canadian labour law case concerning compulsory trade union membership in the Quebec construction industry. The Supreme Court of Canada considered the application of section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the Quebec law in question. A divided Court affirmed the law's constitutionality.

<i>Mounted Police Association of Ontario v Canada</i> 2015 Canadian Charter/labour law case

Mounted Police Association of Ontario v Canada [2015] 1 SCR 3 is a leading Canadian labour law case concerning freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court concluded that the exclusion of Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers from unionization and collective bargaining was unconstitutional, overruling Delisle v Canada. Along with Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan and Meredith v Canada , the decision in MPAO represented a significant evolution in the interpretation of section 2(d), clarifying the legal standard applicable under that provision.

References

  1. 1 2 Government of Canada, Department of Justice (2023-06-29). "Charterpedia - Section 2(d) – Freedom of association". www.justice.gc.ca. Retrieved 2023-10-28.
  2. ↑ "Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.) - SCC Cases". scc-csc.lexum.com. Archived from the original on 2023-10-28. Retrieved 2023-10-30.
  3. ↑ "Dunmore v. Ontario (Attorney General) - SCC Cases". scc-csc.lexum.com. Archived from the original on 2023-10-30. Retrieved 2023-10-30.
  4. 1 2 3 "Ontario (Attorney General) v. Fraser - SCC Cases". scc-csc.lexum.com. Archived from the original on 2023-10-28. Retrieved 2023-10-28.
  5. ↑ Adams, Roy J. (2009). "Prospects for Labour's Right to Bargain Collectively after B.C. Health Services". University of New Brunswick Law Journal. 59: 91.
  6. 1 2 Hunter, Christopher (2011-10-06). "Defining the 'Meaningful' - Collective Bargaining and Freedom of Association (Ontario (Attorney General) v. Fraser) Part III". TheCourt.ca. Retrieved 2023-10-29.
  7. ↑ Hunter, Christopher (2011-09-15). "Defining the 'Meaningful' – Collective Bargaining and Freedom of Association (Ontario (Attorney General) v. Fraser) Part I". TheCourt.ca. Retrieved 2023-10-29.
  8. ↑ Braley, Alison (2011). "'I Will Not Give You a Penny More Than You Deserve': Ontario v. Fraser and the (Uncertain) Right to Collectively Bargain in Canada". McGill Law Journal. 57 (2): 354.
  9. ↑ Langille, Brian (2013–2014). ""The Trilogy Is a Foreign Country, They Do Things Differently There"". Ottawa Law Review. 45.
  10. ↑ Thorncroft, Kenneth William (June 2014). "In Bad Faith? Teacher Bargaining, the Charter and Public Policy in British Columbia". Education & Law Journal. 23: 156.
  11. ↑ "Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada (Attorney General) - SCC Cases". scc-csc.lexum.com. Archived from the original on 2023-10-28. Retrieved 2023-10-28.
  12. ↑ Dunn, Michael S. (2015). "Many Questions and a Few Answers: Freedom of Association after Saskatchewan Federation of Labour, Mounted Police Association of Ontario and Meredith". The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode's Annual Constitutional Cases Conference. 71: 402. Archived from the original on 2023-10-25.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.