While Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan remains the Supreme Court of Canada’s headline decision for labour law in 2015, Mounted Police Association of Ontario v Canada (Attorney General) arguably further developed the Court’s continuing reappraisal of freedom of association. Mounted Police provided some direction as to the content of a ‘meaningful pursuit of workplace goals’. The guidance can be categorised in terms of process and outcome where the former constitutes the content of freedom of association and the latter is viewed as sitting outside of its protection

Mangan, D.

Dunmore v Ontario (Attorney-General) has been identified as a demarcation point for the

interpretation of freedom of association.1 In overruling the long-established rule from

Hersees of Woodstock v Goldstein2 in RWDSU, Local 558 v Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages

(West) Ltd,3 though, the Canadian Supreme Court signalled a willingness to depart

from past precedents. Ever since Health Services and Support—Facilities Subsector Bargaining

Association v British Columbia, where ‘the concept of freedom of association

[was interpreted as including the] notion of a procedural right to collective bargaining’,4

there has been debate regarding the content of the freedom of association pursuant to s 2

(d) of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.5 Mounted Police Association of Ontario

v Canada (Attorney General),6 the focus here, supplemented the existing content of

freedom of association.

While Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan7 remains the headline

decision for labour law in 2015, Mounted Police continued the elaboration of freedom

of association. Certainly Saskatchewan changed Canadian labour law textbooks: s 2(d)

of the Charter gives effect to a right to strike, thereby setting aside the interpretation

from 1987 that freedom of association was an individual right, accorded a limited

interpretation. Nevertheless, consider the legislation struck down. Through the Public

Service Essential Services Act,8 the provincial government granted itself unilateral authority

to declare any public sector workers as ‘essential service employees’, prohibiting them from participating in strike action. The Act contained no meaningful mechanism

for resolving bargaining impasses.9 Moreover, the identification of essential service

employees was even beyond adjudication by a labour relations board. Given the scope

of the legislation, surprise would have been slight that such a one-sided statute was

found to have violated s 2(d). Instead, Mounted Police provided some further direction

as to the content of a ‘meaningful pursuit of workplace goals’. The guidance can be categorised

in terms of process and outcome where the former constitutes the content of

freedom of association and the latter is viewed as sitting outside the right

'Process and Outcome'

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NUI Maynooth Eprint Archive

Crossref

City Research Online

Maynooth University ePrints and eTheses Archive

Maynooth EPrints and ETheses Archive

MURAL - Maynooth University Research Archive Library