R v Advance Cutting & Coring Ltd

Last updated

R v Advance Cutting & Coring Ltd
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Hearing: March 20, 2000
Judgment: October 19, 2001
Citations [2001] 3 SCR 209, 2001 SCC 70
Prior historyOn appeal from the Quebec Court of Appeal
Holding
Quebec's law requiring trade union membership for employees in the construction industry did not violate the Charter
Court membership
Chief JusticeMcLachlin C.J.
Puisne JusticesL'Heureux‑Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.
Reasons given
PluralityLeBel J., joined by Gonthier and Arbour JJ.
ConcurrenceL'Heureux-Dubé J.
ConcurrenceIacobucci J.
DissentBastarache J., joined by McLachlin C.J. and Major and Binnie JJ.
Laws applied
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , s. 2(d)

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.

Contents

Background

In 1991, the Supreme Court decided Lavigne v Ontario Public Service Employees Union . The Court in that case split regarding the existence, scope and extent of a "freedom from compelled association", although the majority held that such a right was protected by section 2(d) of the Charter. [1]

At issue in Advance Cutting was a Quebec law requiring employees in the construction industry to obtain a competency certificate; the issuance of a competency certificate was linked to an employee's membership in a designated trade union. [2]

The appellants were contractors, real estate promoters and construction workers who had been convicted of violating the relevant law. Specifically, the employers hired workers without the requisite competency certificates, and the employees engaged in work in the industry without the proper competency certificates. At trial, they challenged the law in question as violating their Charter right to freedom from compelled association. [3]

Procedural history

At trial, a judge of the Court of Quebec dismissed the constitutional argument, and entered convictions. On appeal, this holding was affirmed by the Superior Court of Quebec. A further appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal was likewise dismissed, finding no breach of section 2(d). The appellants were granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on the section 2(d) issue. As in the courts below, the issue of mobility rights under section 6 of the Charter were not litigated before the Supreme Court. [3]

Judgment

A majority of the Court rejected the constitutional argument and agreed that the appeal should be dismissed, but for different reasons. Justice LeBel, joined by Justices Gonthier and Arbour, found no breach of section 2(d). The plurality affirmed that the Charter guarantees freedom from "compelled association", but found that the Quebec legislation in question did not infringe this right: it did not impose "ideological conformity" on the appellants. [4]

Justice Iacobucci concurred in the result, agreeing that the Charter encompassed a negative right to be free from association. He found that the law at issue infringed section 2(d), but that the infringement was justified under section 1 of the Charter.

Justice L'Hereux-Dubé also concurred, but cited Justice Wilson's opinion in Lavigne to conclude "that s. 2(d) includes only the positive freedom to associate". Her opinion was unique in declining to recognize a Charter-protected freedom from compelled association.

Three justices (Chief Justice McLachlin and Justices Major and Binnie) joined Justice Bastarache in dissent. The dissenting justices agreed that the Charter protected against compelled association. They found that the law in question infringed section 2(d) in a manner that could not be justified under section 1. [3]

Commentary

Writing in the Supreme Court Law Review, one author commented that Advance Cutting, among other labour law cases, "may also have implications that extend beyond the constitutionalization of labour relations", observing that the Court emphasized "collective interests over individual rights to uphold a legislative scheme which imposed serious constraints on section 2(d)'s negative and positive entitlements." [2]

Another commentator opined that "the 'freedom to not associate' cases, Lavigne and Advance Cutting, involving challenges to union security agreements or laws, represent successes for unions in Charter litigation which were rare at the time they were decided." [5]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Canada</span> Highest court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in the judicial system of Canada. It comprises nine justices, whose decisions are the ultimate application of Canadian law, and grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. The Supreme Court is bijural, hearing cases from two major legal traditions and bilingual, hearing cases in both official languages of Canada.

Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Constitution of Canada. It is commonly known as the notwithstanding clause. Sometimes referred to as the override power, it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to temporarily override sections 2 and 7–15 of the Charter.

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."

<i>Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 SCR 143 is the first Supreme Court of Canada case to deal with the equality rights provided under Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. British law graduate Mark David Andrews challenged the validity of Section 42 of the Barristers and Solicitors Act contending that the Canadian citizenship requirement for being called to the bar violated Section 15 of the Charter.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of religion in Canada</span>

Freedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference.

<i>New Brunswick Broadcasting Co v Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

New Brunswick Broadcasting Co v Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly) is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision wherein the court has ruled that parliamentary privilege is a part of the unwritten convention in the Constitution of Canada. Therefore, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms do not apply to members of Nova Scotia House of Assembly when they exercise their inherent privileges of refusing strangers from entering the House.

<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>Montréal (City of) v 2952-1366 Québec Inc</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Montréal v 2952-1366 Québec Inc, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 141, 2005 SCC 62 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court held that a strip club has no constitutional right to broadcast music into public streets in order to attract customers. The decision stated that location of the expression was a factor in considering if there was a violation.

<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.

<i>Cuddy Chicks Ltd v Ontario</i> (Labour Relations Board) Supreme Court of Canada case

Cuddy Chicks Ltd v Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1991] 2 SCR 5 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the jurisdiction of tribunals to hear constitutional challenges of the tribunal's enabling statute.

<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. Inspired by Canada's involvement in the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the current legal framework for human rights in Canada consists of constitutional entitlements, and statutory human rights codes, both federal and provincial.

In Canada, the term quasi-constitutional is used for laws which remain paramount even when subsequent statutes, which contradict them, are enacted by the same legislature. This is the reverse of the normal practice, under which newer laws trump any contradictory provisions in any older statute.

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>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>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.

<i>Ontario v Fraser</i> Canadian labour and constitutional law case

Ontario 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. A majority of the Court upheld the law, finding no breach of sections 2(d) or 15 of the Charter.

References

  1. "Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union - SCC Cases". scc-csc.lexum.com. Archived from the original on 2023-10-29. Retrieved 2023-10-25.
  2. 1 2 Cameron, Jamie (2002). "The "Second Labour Trilogy": A Comment on R v. Advance Cutting, Dunmore v. Ontario, and R.W.D.S.U. v. Pepsi-Cola". The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode's Annual Constitutional Cases Conference. 16: 71.
  3. 1 2 3 "R. v. Advance Cutting & Coring Ltd. - SCC Cases". scc-csc.lexum.com. Archived from the original on 2023-10-29. Retrieved 2023-10-25.
  4. Government of Canada, Department of Justice (2022-07-31). "Charterpedia - Section 2(d) – Freedom of association". www.justice.gc.ca. Archived from the original on 2023-10-29. Retrieved 2023-10-25.
  5. Parks, Debra (2010). "The Rand Formula Revisted: Union Security in the Charter Era". Manitoba Law Journal. 34 (1): 225.