View cases - Stewart McKelvey

established. There is no concrete evidence that the principles enunciated in Dunmore and HealthServices are unworkable or have led to intolerable results. It is premature to argue that theholding in Health Services, rendered four years ago, is unworkable in practice.The Ontario legislature is not required to provide a particular form of collectivebargaining rights to agricultural workers, in order to secure the effective exercise of theirassociational rights. In this case, the Court of Appeal has overstated the ambit of the s. 2(d)2011 SCC 20 (CanLII)right. The affirmation of the right to collective bargaining is not an affirmation of a particulartype of collective bargaining, such as the Wagner model which is dominant in Canada. Whats. 2(d) protects is the right to associate to achieve collective goals. Laws or government actionthat substantially interferes with the ability to achieve collective goals have the effect of limitingfreedom of association, by making it pointless. It is in this derivative sense that s. 2(d) protects aright to collective bargaining. Legislatures are not constitutionally required, in all cases and forall industries, to enact laws that set up a uniform model of labour relations imposing a statutoryduty to bargain in good faith, statutory recognition of the principles of exclusive majorityrepresentation and a statutory mechanism for resolving bargaining impasses and disputesregarding the interpretation or administration of collective agreements. What is protected isassociational activity, not a particular process or result.Farm workers in Ontario are entitled to meaningful processes by which they canpursue workplace goals. The right of an employees’ association to make representations to theemployer and have its views considered in good faith is a derivative right under s. 2(d) of theCharter, necessary to meaningful exercise of the right to free association. The AEPA provides a