Canadian Union of Public Employees v Ontario (Minister of Labour)

Canadian Union of Public Employees v Ontario (Minister of Labour)
	Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: October 8, 2002 ; Judgment: May 16, 2003
Full case name	Minister of Labour for Ontario v. Canadian Union of Public Employees and Service Employees International Union
Citations	2003 SCC 29, [2003] 1 SCR 539
Docket No.	28396
Prior history	On appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Ruling	Appeal dismissed
Holding
	The Minister of Labour under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act must appoint arbitrators who have labour relations expertise in addition to satisfying impartiality criteria.
Court Membership
	Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin ; Puisne Justices: Charles Gonthier, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louise Arbour, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps
Reasons given
Majority	Binnie J., joined by Gonthier, Iacobucci, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.
Dissent	Bastarache J., joined by McLachlin C.J. and Major J.
Laws Applied
	Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, RSO 1990, c H14, s 6(5)

Last updated March 17, 2019

Canadian Union of Public Employees v Ontario (Minister of Labour), 2003 SCC 29, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on arbitration and bias in administrative law. The Court held that it was patently unreasonable for the Minister of Labour to appoint retired judges as arbitrators in labour disputes without considering their expertise in labour relations under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitrations Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada, the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. Its decisions are the ultimate expression and application of Canadian law and binding upon all lower courts of Canada, except to the extent that they are overridden or otherwise made ineffective by an Act of Parliament or the Act of a provincial legislative assembly pursuant to section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Arbitration technique for the resolution of disputes

Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a way to resolve disputes outside the courts. The dispute will be decided by one or more persons, which renders the "arbitration award". An arbitration award is legally binding on both sides and enforceable in the courts.

Canadian administrative law is the body of law that addresses the actions and operations of governments and governmental agencies in Canada. That is, the law concerns the manner in which courts can review the decisions of administrative decision-makers (ADMs) such as a board, tribunal, commission, agency or minister.

Background

In Ontario, labour relations at hospitals and nursing homes are regulated under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, RSO 1990, c H14, s 6(5) (HLDAA), which require the parties to resolve labour disputes through collective bargaining with compulsory arbitration. Arbitrators were appointed by mutual agreement between the parties, but in case of a dispute, a panel of three arbitrators is selected with one member selected by each side and a third appointed by the Minister of Labour. A list of approved arbitrators was provided under s. 49(10) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Ontario is one of the 13 provinces and territories of Canada and is located in east-central Canada. It is Canada's most populous province accounting for 38.3 percent of the country's population, and is the second-largest province in total area. Ontario is fourth-largest jurisdiction in total area when the territories of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut are included. It is home to the nation's capital city, Ottawa, and the nation's most populous city, Toronto, which is also Ontario's provincial capital.

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. The collective agreements reached by these negotiations usually set out wage scales, working hours, training, health and safety, overtime, grievance mechanisms, and rights to participate in workplace or company affairs.

In 1998, the Minister of Labour appointed four retired judges not on the pre-approved list as arbitrators to several labour boards. The unions, represented by the Ontario Federation of Labour and Canadian Union of Public Employees, protested, arguing that the retired judges lack labour expertise, experience, tenure and independence from government. They sought an application to declare the Minister's appointments invalid on the basis that he breached the principles of natural justice, creating a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Ontario Federation of Labour is a federation of labour unions in the Canadian province of Ontario. The original OFL was established by the Canadian Congress of Labour in 1944. It was merged with the rival Ontario Provincial Federation of Labour in 1957, one year after the merger of the CCL and the Trades and Labour Congress. It is now the provincial federation of the Canadian Labour Congress.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees is a Canadian trade union serving the public sector - although it has in recent years organized workplaces in the non-profit and para-public sector as well. CUPE is the largest union in Canada, representing some 650,000 workers in health care, education, municipalities, libraries, universities, social services, public utilities, transportation, emergency services and airlines. Over 60% of CUPE's members are women, and almost a third are part-time workers. CUPE is affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress and is its greatest financial contributor.

In English law, natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing. While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, it has largely been replaced and extended by the general "duty to act fairly".

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, but was overturned by the Court of Appeal, which ordered the Minister to refrain from appointing further arbitrators not from the approved list.

The issue before the Supreme Court of Canada was whether the Minister of Labour had created bias in the arbitration proceedings through his appointment of retired judges.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal decision, finding that the Minister's failure to consider appointees' expertise in labour relations was patently unreasonable.

Binnie J., writing for a majority of the Court, invoked the rule of law principle from Roncarelli v. Duplessis , noting that the Minister is not entitled to untrammelled discretion.^[1] Although the Minister was given broad powers under the provincial legislation and was entitled to a measure of deference, he held that the Minister's discretionary powers were constrained to the purpose and object of the Act.

William Ian Corneil Binnie is a former puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, serving from 1998 to 2011. Of the justices appointed to the Supreme Court in recent years, he is one of the few to have never sat as a judge prior to his appointment. He was described by the Toronto Star as "one of the strongest hands on the court."

The rule of law is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as: "The authority and influence of law in society, especially when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behavior; (hence) the principle whereby all members of a society are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes." The phrase "the rule of law" refers to a political situation, not to any specific legal rule.

The purpose of the HLDAA was interpreted as providing an adequate alternative to strikes and lock-outs, and that to accomplish the purpose, "the parties must perceive the system as neutral and credible".^[2] In this context, for the union to perceive the arbitrators as credible, they must not only be impartial, but they must have specialized knowledge and expertise in labour relations.

Strike action, also called labor strike, labour strike, or simply strike, is a work stoppage, caused by the mass refusal of employees to work. A strike usually takes place in response to employee grievances. Strikes became common during the Industrial Revolution, when mass labor became important in factories and mines. In most countries, strike actions were quickly made illegal, as factory owners had far more power than workers. Most Western countries partially legalized striking in the late 19th or early 20th centuries.

Given the statutory powers and discretion granted to the Minister, the standard of review was that of patent unreasonableness. Nonetheless, Binnie J. found that the Minister's appointments were patently unreasonable because he acted beyond the object of the Act in excluding consideration of labour relations expertise and general acceptability to the labour relations community.^[3]

Dissenting opinion

Bastarache J., in dissent, agreed with Binnie J.'s opinion that the Minister was entitled to deference and that the appropriate standard of review was patent unreasonableness. However, Bastarache J. would have held that the Minister's actions were not patently unreasonable, because the powers granted to him under the legislation was broad and set out no criteria for arbitration appointments.^[4]

Related Research Articles

Arbitration, in the context of United States law, is a form of alternative dispute resolution. Specifically, arbitration is an alternative to litigation through which the parties to a dispute agree to submit their respective positions to a neutral third party for resolution. In practice arbitration is generally used as a substitute for litigation, particularly when the judicial process is perceived as too slow, expensive or biased. In some context, an arbitrator may be described as an umpire.

The Implied Bill of Rights is a judicial theory in Canadian jurisprudence that recognizes that certain basic principles are underlying the Constitution of Canada. Invoked more often before the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted, it is nonetheless important when questions of parliamentary supremacy and the override power come into play.

The Federal Court of Canada, which succeeded the Exchequer Court of Canada in 1971, was a national court of Canada that had limited jurisdiction to hear certain types of disputes arising under the federal government's legislative jurisdiction. The Court was split in 2003 into two separate Courts, the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal, although the jurisdiction and powers of the Courts remained largely unchanged.

The court system of Canada forms the judicial branch of government, formally known as "The Queen on the Bench", which interprets the law and is made up of many courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction. Some of the courts are federal in nature, while others are provincial or territorial.

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.

The United States Arbitration Act, more commonly referred to as the Federal Arbitration Act or FAA, is an act of Congress that provides for judicial facilitation of private dispute resolution through arbitration. It applies in both state courts and federal courts, as was held constitutional in Southland Corp. v. Keating. It applies where the transaction contemplated by the parties "involves" interstate commerce and is predicated on an exercise of the Commerce Clause powers granted to Congress in the U.S. Constitution.

Arbitration clause clause in a contract that requires the parties to resolve their disputes through an arbitration process

An arbitration clause is a clause in a contract that requires the parties to resolve their disputes through an arbitration process. Although such a clause may or may not specify that arbitration occur within a specific jurisdiction, it always binds the parties to a type of resolution outside the courts, and is therefore considered a kind of forum selection clause.

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.

Weber v Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court held that a labour arbitration board was a "court of competent jurisdiction" within the meaning of section 24(1) of the Charter, and could grant declarations and damages. Consequently, the board has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, and so employees cannot bring suits concerning matters under a collective agreement to court.

Arbitral tribunal a panel of adjudicators to resolve a dispute by way of arbitration

An arbitral tribunal is a panel of one or more adjudicators which is convened and sits to resolve a dispute by way of arbitration. The tribunal may consist of a sole arbitrator, or there may be two or more arbitrators, which might include either a chairman or an umpire. Members selected to serve on the tribunal are typically professionals with expertise in law and mediation, although some scholars have suggested that the ideal composition of an arbitral tribunal should include at least one economist, particularly in cases that involve questions of asset or damages valuation.

Lavoie v Canada, [2002] 1 SCR 769, 2002 SCC 23 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on whether preference on basis of citizenship infringed equality guarantee under section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court found that the federal Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), which gave preference to citizens when referring to departments, was discriminatory. The violation was saved under section 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limitation on equality rights.

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v New Brunswick Liquor Corp, [1979] 2 SCR 227 is a leading case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. This case first developed the patent unreasonableness standard of review in Canadian administrative law.

Dunsmuir v New Brunswick2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 SCR 190 is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the topic of substantive review and standards of review. The decision is notable for combining the reasonableness (simpliciter) and patent unreasonableness standards of review into a single reasonableness standard.

Canada v. Khosa, 2009 SCC 12, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision in Canadian administrative law.

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 Preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867 provides:

Robert Patrick Armstrong is a Canadian lawyer and retired judge. He served on the Court of Appeal for Ontario from 2002 until his retirement in 2013. Before serving on the bench, Armstrong was a partner at Torys and was lead counsel in the Dubin Inquiry on steroid use in Canadian sports. After leaving the bench, Armstrong joined Arbitration Place, a Canadian group specializing in alternative dispute resolution.

References

↑ 2003 SCC 29, at paras 91-92.
↑ Ibid at paras 110-111.
↑ Ibid at para 184.
↑ Ibid at para 36.

External links

Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision available at LexUM and CanLII

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.

[1] 2003 SCC 29, at paras 91-92.

[2] Ibid at paras 110-111.

[3] Ibid at para 184.

[4] Ibid at para 36.