Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal to Rule Tomorrow on Charter Right to Strike

by David Doorey April 25, 2013
written by David Doorey April 25, 2013

My prairie sources tell me that tomorrow is the big day. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal is set to issue its landmark ruling on whether the Section 2(d) of the Charter [freedom of association] guarantees Canadians a right to strike. If the Charter guarantees a right to strike, then all manner of laws that prohibit and restrict the right to strike would be subject to challenge.  We have an abundance of such laws in Canada.
Of course, whatever the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decides is just a step along the inevitable path to the Supreme Court of Canada. The last time the SCC was asked whether the Charter protects a right to strike, in 1987, the answer was no.  However, a lot has changed since then, including the B.C. Health Services decision, in which the SCC overturned its 1990 conclusion that the Charter did not include a right to collective bargaining.  Since BC Health Services, there has been an expectation in the labour law bar that the SCC will similarly overrule its 1987 rulings (in the so-called Labour Trilogy) that strikes are not protected.
For a review of the Labour Trilogy and its potential impact on the right to strike cases, see this excellent review by Prof. Jamie Cameron of Osgoode Hall Law School.
Interestingly, in the Labour Trilogy cases, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal was on the side of recognizing a right to strike.  It was overturned by the SCC in one of the three Labour Trilogy cases (the Saskatchewan Dairy Workers case).  For very keen labour law students, go back and read the Court of Appeal reasons.  Is tomorrow’s ruling a chance for the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal to say, “I told you so” in a message to the SCC?
Justice Ball of the Saskatchewan Court of Queens Bench ruled last year that the right to strike was guaranteed by the Charter.  He relied on the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent pronouncements on the need for the Charter to be interpreted consistent with Canada’s international law obligations.  Those obligations include protection of a robust right to strike.  He ruled that Saskatchewan’s labour laws, which prohibited or rendered useless any right to strike infringed the Charter, and were not saved by Section 1 of the Charter.

Court of Appeal to Rule Tomorrow on Whether Charter Protects a Right to Strike


By way of refresher, here are some of my earlier blog postings on the case.  Though I won’t have time to do a full summary of the decision tomorrow, I will post it on the blog once I get it.

Explaining the Saskatchewan Court’s Finding that the Charter Protects a Right to Strike
Professor Michael Lynk’s Expert Affidavit on the ILO’s Law on the Right to Strike
Guest Blog: Professor Roy Adams on the Saskatchewan Decision Recognizing a Charter Right to Strike
Saskatchewan Government Appeals Ruling Finding Charter Protects Right to Strike

P.S., legal counsel for the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour in the case is Craig Bavis, who is presently a student in the Osgoode LLM program in labour and employment law, of which I am Director.  And my buddy from London graduate school days, Peter Barnacle, is on for CUPE.  Peter was at Cambridge doing his LLM, when I was at LSE.  Good luck, Craig and Peter!
The eyes of the labour law world are upon you this week.

7 comments
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Look for the New Law of Work Website, Coming Soon
next post
Saskatchewan Court of Appeal: No Charter Right to Strike Until SCC Says So

You may also like

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 219 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
24 Feb

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
24 Feb

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
24 Feb

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.