View cases - Stewart McKelvey

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education), 2003 SCC 62, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 3; R . v.Powley, 2003 SCC 43, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 207; Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. CriminalLawyers’ Association, 2010 SCC 23, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 815; Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. NewBrunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480; R. v. National Post, 2010 SCC 16, [2010] 1S.C.R. 477; R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem,2004 SCC 47, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551; R. v. Advance Cutting & Coring Ltd., 2001 SCC 70, [2001] 32011 SCC 20 (CanLII)S.C.R. 209; Reference re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (Man.), [1990] 1 S.C.R.1123; Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211; Bell ExpressVuLimited Partnership v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; Royal Oak Mines Inc. v. Canada(Labour Relations Board), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 369; Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R.27; Liversidge v. Anderson, [1942] A.C. 206.By Deschamps J.Applied: Dunmore v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2001 SCC 94, [2001] 3 S.C.R.1016; discussed: Health Services and Support — Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v.British Columbia, 2007 SCC 27, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 391; referred to: R. v. Advance Cutting &Coring Ltd., 2001 SCC 70, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 209; Delisle v. Canada (Deputy Attorney General),[1999] 2 S.C.R. 989; Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; Greater Vancouver TransportationAuthority v. Canadian Federation of Students — British Columbia Component, 2009 SCC 31,[2009] 2 S.C.R. 295.
By Abella J. (dissenting)Health Services and Support — Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. BritishColumbia, 2007 SCC 27, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 391; Reference re Public Service Employee RelationsAct (Alta.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; PSAC v. Canada, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 424; RWDSU v.Saskatchewan, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 460; Dunmore v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2001 SCC 94,[2001] 3 S.C.R. 1016; Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada v. Northwest2011 SCC 20 (CanLII)Territories (Commissioner), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 367; Royal Oak Mines Inc. v. Canada (LabourRelations Board), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 369; U.E.W. and DeVilbiss Ltd., [1976] 2 C.L.R.B.R. 101;Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 567; WellingtonMushroom Farm, [1980] O.L.R.B. Rep. May 813.Statutes and Regulations CitedAct respecting labour relations, vocational training and workforce management in theconstruction industry, R.S.Q., c. R-20.Agricultural Employees Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 16, ss. 1, 2, 5, 7-11.Agricultural Labour Relations Act, 1994, S.O. 1994, c. 6 [rep. 1995, c. 1, s. 80], Preamble, ss. 3,10, 11.Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 2(a), (b), (d), 7-12, 15, 23, 32, 33.Constitution Act, 1982, ss. 35(1), 52.Industrial Relations Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. I-4, s. 1(5)(a).Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, S.C. 1948, c. 54.Labour Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. L-1, s. 7.
Page 1 and 2:
CITATION: Brito v. Canac Kitchens,
Page 3 and 4:
Page: 3a) What, if any, period of n
Page 5 and 6:
Page: 5[18] Having regard for Canac
Page 7 and 8:
CITATION: Chandran v. National Bank
Page 9 and 10:
Page: 3against him by the employees
Page 11 and 12:
Page: 5the employees who raised the
Page 13 and 14:
Page: 7had no obligation under the
Page 15 and 16:
Page: 9[37] Mr. Chandran’s last j
Page 17 and 18:
Page: 11large number of unsolicited
Page 19 and 20:
Page: 13disciplinary letter against
Page 21 and 22:
Page: 15evidence of acrimony betwee
Page 23 and 24:
Page: 17Toronto office. He admitted
Page 25 and 26:
Page: 19increase in the quantum of
Page 27 and 28:
Page: 21Weissach Motors and MCL Mot
Page 29 and 30:
Page: 23“There can be no catalogu
Page 31 and 32:
Page: 25[123] On the basis of the a
Page 33 and 34:
QUEEN’S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWANDat
Page 35 and 36:
- 3 -meet his financial obligations
Page 37 and 38:
- 5 -[11] On June 28, 2002, without
Page 39 and 40:
- 7 -and a capital gain of $23,874.
Page 41 and 42:
- 9 -may have delayed commencement
Page 43 and 44:
- 11 -had purchased late in 2001 an
Page 45 and 46:
- 13 -[34] Stated in another way, w
Page 47 and 48:
- 15 -supervised by the plaintiff.
Page 49 and 50:
- 17 -purchasing agent for a compan
Page 51 and 52:
- 19 -sales, conducting retail sale
Page 53 and 54:
- 21 -employment with Bennett Dunlo
Page 55 and 56:
- 23 -[54] The issue was taken up b
Page 57 and 58:
- 25 -59 ... Damages attributable t
Page 59 and 60:
- 27 -not have any information rega
Page 61 and 62:
- 29 -[66] Both Mr. Coppola and Mr.
Page 63 and 64:
- 31 -expense accounts which contai
Page 65 and 66:
- 33 -by the plaintiffs in the abov
Page 67 and 68:
- 35 -Pre-judgment interest[76] Mr.
Page 69 and 70:
- 37 -the six month notice period.
Page 71 and 72:
SummaryFollowing concerns raised by
Page 73 and 74:
2REASONS FOR DECISIONIntroduction[1
Page 75 and 76:
4agreed statement) and also by test
Page 77 and 78:
6e. that it was not his responsibil
Page 79 and 80:
8Department of Labour. The firm adv
Page 81 and 82:
10that “the buck stopped with me
Page 83 and 84:
12without any knowledge of this and
Page 85 and 86:
14[41] Various other cases, cited i
Page 87 and 88:
16[49] There is nothing wrong with
Page 89 and 90:
182 The foundation of this Act is t
Page 91 and 92:
20(b) the co-operative auditing of
Page 93 and 94:
- 2 -The Honourable Justice Turnbul
Page 95 and 96:
- 2 -concluded that, while the mill
Page 97 and 98:
- 4 -[6] The union’s position is
Page 99 and 100:
- 6 -it must be reasonable; (3) it
Page 101 and 102:
- 8 -the majority relied in part on
Page 103 and 104:
- 10 -Taken with the low testing ra
Page 105 and 106:
- 12 -should depart from those prec
Page 107 and 108:
- 14 -IV.Issues - AnalysisA. Introd
Page 109 and 110:
- 16 -distinguished any analogy bet
Page 111 and 112:
- 18 -industry. The lead case appea
Page 113 and 114:
- 20 -rather than a reactive, appro
Page 115 and 116:
- 22 -employers of the burden of de
Page 117 and 118:
- 24 -Canada, Local 0004, supra. Al
Page 119 and 120:
- 26 -C. Summary Observations on th
Page 121 and 122:
- 28 -hazardous materials to variou
Page 123 and 124:
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH OF
Page 125 and 126:
2assistance and remain employed. Ki
Page 127 and 128: 4a) there is a strong prima facie c
Page 129 and 130: 6discrimination. The letter also st
Page 131 and 132: 8applicable guidelines. He was give
Page 133 and 134: 10Correct Legal Test[15] Killam’s
Page 135 and 136: 12position. However, because of the
Page 137 and 138: Page: 2FACTS[2] The respondent is a
Page 139 and 140: Page: 4REASONS OF THE APPLICATION J
Page 141 and 142: Page: 6trade, certain of such coven
Page 143 and 144: Page: 8[17] It is convenient to rep
Page 145 and 146: Page: 10duties for the Company or w
Page 147 and 148: Page: 12[30] Effectively, because t
Page 149 and 150: SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIACitatio
Page 151 and 152: Page: 341. In every proceeding comm
Page 153 and 154: Page: 5[8] There is ample case auth
Page 155 and 156: Page: 7some amount be awarded for p
Page 157 and 158: NOTE: This document is subject to e
Page 159 and 160: 2011 SCC 20File No.: 32968.2009: De
Page 161 and 162: allowed the appeal and declared the
Page 163 and 164: established. There is no concrete e
Page 165 and 166: Section 5 of the AEPA, correctly in
Page 167 and 168: pursue, rather than protecting the
Page 169 and 170: expression under s. 2(b), so too sh
Page 171 and 172: Nor did invoking Charter values in
Page 173 and 174: Per Deschamps J.: The holding in He
Page 175 and 176: from the legislation was unequivoca
Page 177: KMart Canada Ltd., [1999] 2 S.C.R.
Page 181 and 182: Adams, Roy J. “Prospects for Labo
Page 183 and 184: International Labour Organisation.
Page 185 and 186: Gaétan Migneault and Michelle Brun
Page 187 and 188: TABLE OF CONTENTSParagraphReasons o
Page 189 and 190: (b) Qualitative Differences Between
Page 191 and 192: yThe judgment of McLachlin C.J. and
Page 193 and 194: majority of this Court found a brea
Page 195 and 196: [10] The UFCW also attempted to bar
Page 197 and 198: [14] With respect to the particular
Page 199 and 200: employees from a collective bargain
Page 201 and 202: and to realize common purposes” (
Page 203 and 204: (b) Dunmore[26] This Court’s deci
Page 205 and 206: support discredited the organizing
Page 207 and 208: [34] Dunmore established that claim
Page 209 and 210: [38] The decision in Health Service
Page 211 and 212: [42] The Court in Health Services e
Page 213 and 214: impugned law or state action has th
Page 215 and 216: [51] In our view, the majority deci
Page 217 and 218: Indeed, the fact that Health Servic
Page 219 and 220: [64] Consistent with this framework
Page 221 and 222: must not depart from the context of
Page 223 and 224: ealize common purposes (emphasis ad
Page 225 and 226: LeBel J., written on behalf of a mi
Page 227 and 228: (ix) The Argument on Academic Criti
Page 229 and 230:
given a generous and purposive inte
Page 231 and 232:
trade unions should negotiate in go
Page 233 and 234:
[101] Sections 5(6) and (7) are cri
Page 235 and 236:
[107] These considerations lead us
Page 237 and 238:
protections would be inappropriate
Page 239 and 240:
3. Does s. 3(b.1) of the Labour Rel
Page 241 and 242:
of s. 2(d) employers “must engage
Page 243 and 244:
per Dickson C.J. in dissent; R. v.
Page 245 and 246:
3. A prior decision that creates un
Page 247 and 248:
[137] Professor Debra Parkes has su
Page 249 and 250:
[140] In the case of Health Service
Page 251 and 252:
[145] Third, the constitutionalizat
Page 253 and 254:
“recognized that under most Canad
Page 255 and 256:
constitutionalize collective bargai
Page 257 and 258:
[159] In addition, the Court was ag
Page 259 and 260:
or effect of a measure when determi
Page 261 and 262:
. . . the state must not substantia
Page 263 and 264:
[173] First, the collective bargain
Page 265 and 266:
ight to bargain because employers a
Page 267 and 268:
incapable of being performed by an
Page 269 and 270:
(2) Section 2(d) Protects Freedoms
Page 271 and 272:
[193] The Chief Justice and LeBel J
Page 273 and 274:
as described in Health Services, it
Page 275 and 276:
[204] Health Services rejected the
Page 277 and 278:
associations must receive identical
Page 279 and 280:
Health Services would in fact be co
Page 281 and 282:
[217] In response to this argument,
Page 283 and 284:
The question at stake in this appea
Page 285 and 286:
constitutional law the particular f
Page 287 and 288:
can, then we must seriously questio
Page 289 and 290:
[235] The labour history offered in
Page 291 and 292:
[241] It is true that there is a lo
Page 293 and 294:
understanding of freedom of associa
Page 295 and 296:
The voluntary nature of collective
Page 297 and 298:
equirements it finds to the case be
Page 299 and 300:
exclusivity and a mechanism for res
Page 301 and 302:
takes time before the unworkability
Page 303 and 304:
argain in good faith change these m
Page 305 and 306:
employee, to make a “take it or l
Page 307 and 308:
obligations, and Charter values —
Page 309 and 310:
[279] Nonetheless, the Chief Justic
Page 311 and 312:
[283] It is true, as my colleagues
Page 313 and 314:
They base their view on a statement
Page 315 and 316:
. . . the freedom to work for the e
Page 317 and 318:
case at bar (2008 ONCA 760, 92 O.R.
Page 319 and 320:
[302] As the majority in the instan
Page 321 and 322:
[305] All that was required by the
Page 323 and 324:
ound” by s. 2(d) seems to have be
Page 325 and 326:
to Bargain Collectively: The Implic
Page 327 and 328:
cases in which the vulnerability of
Page 329 and 330:
[323] The AEPA was enacted in 2002
Page 331 and 332:
10-1920; Donald D. Carter et al., L
Page 333 and 334:
Agriculture and Food, the Honourabl
Page 335 and 336:
activities of the “employees’ a
Page 337 and 338:
[346] The reason for the protection
Page 339 and 340:
[351] I acknowledge that different
Page 341 and 342:
May 813, does “not differ in any
Page 343 and 344:
argaining, including exclusivity, b
Page 345 and 346:
accordance with a bargaining regime
Page 347 and 348:
5. (1) The employer shall give an e
Page 349 and 350:
Solicitor for the intervener the At
Page 351 and 352:
CLIENT UPDATELABOUR & EMPLOYMENT LA
Page 369 and 370:
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIACitatio
Page 371 and 372:
Page: 3failure to observe, perform
Page 373 and 374:
Page: 5offences under the Immigrati
Page 375 and 376:
Page: 7(5) Interest was payable on
Page 377 and 378:
Page: 910.08 Should there be a disa
Page 379 and 380:
Page: 11that the arbitration in que
Page 381 and 382:
Page: 13[31] In Knox v. Conservativ
Page 383 and 384:
Page: 15The Applicants should not b
Page 385 and 386:
the court refuses to review the arb
Page 387 and 388:
Page: 19(d) the composition of the
Page 389 and 390:
Page: 21[49] The Applicant states t
Page 391 and 392:
Page: 23[55] In addition, the Respo
Page 393 and 394:
Page: 2577.06 (1) Party and party c
Page 395 and 396:
:" .. "Schedule AIN THE MATTER OF A
Page 397 and 398:
., ....3OVERVIEWTheClaimant, Ms. Co
Page 399 and 400:
....5The Companybegan business. Inc
Page 401 and 402:
7Subsequently the Jennifer Allan bu
Page 403 and 404:
9She was then given a letter dated
Page 405 and 406:
· ,111. Ms. Cormier knowingly cont
Page 407 and 408:
13Mr. Nordqvist testified that Ms.
Page 409 and 410:
15Ms. Cormier decided to set up suc
Page 411 and 412:
"17ofthat because of difficulties M
Page 413 and 414:
,.19Ms. Carter was invited to a mee
Page 415 and 416:
. .,'21I am also satisfied that the
Page 417 and 418:
23call from Ms. Cormier that Revenu
Page 419 and 420:
,. ."25There is also evidence that
Page 421 and 422:
· . ,27Ms. Gallant did no scheduli
Page 423 and 424:
. \. .. ~..29Ms. Cormier testified
Page 425 and 426:
. '...31the files relating to some
Page 427 and 428:
. ",.'933Ms. Cormier testified that
Page 429 and 430:
...35environment including any lack
Page 431 and 432:
.'37In the year 2000, there was ano
Page 433 and 434:
..39identified anything that she wa
Page 435 and 436:
" .' .,.\1.·....l -,1'.• ,~.,.".
show all

View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?