View cases - Stewart McKelvey

argaining method. What s. 2(d) guarantees in the labour relations context is a meaningfulprocess.The decision in Health Services follows directly from the principles enunciated inDunmore. Section 2(d), interpreted purposively and in light of Canada’s values andcommitments, protects associational collective activity in furtherance of workplace goals. Theright is not merely a paper right, but a right to a process that permits meaningful pursuit of those2011 SCC 20 (CanLII)goals. The principles within Dunmore and Health Services, represent good law, should not beoverturned and provide resolution in this appeal.The seriousness of overturning recent precedents of this Court, representing theconsidered views of firm majorities, cannot be overstated. The arguments advanced in favour ofoverturning Health Services do not meet the high threshold for reversing a precedent of thisCourt as it is grounded in precedent, consistent with Canadian values, consistent with Canada’sinternational commitments and consistent with this Court’s purposive and generousinterpretation of other Charter guarantees. Health Services was consistent with previous caseson the issue of individual and collective rights. It recognized, as did previous jurisprudence, thats. 2(d) is an individual right. It also recognized, as did previous cases, that to meaningfullyuphold this individual right, s. 2(d) may properly require legislative protection of group orcollective activities. The approach to deference to Parliament and legislatures advanced inHealth Services is also consistent with this Court’s general jurisprudence. Deference shouldinform the determination of whether a legislative scheme satisfies the requirements of theCharter, as articulated by the courts. The unworkability of Health Services has not been