View cases - Stewart McKelvey

ealize common purposes (emphasis added).” Dunmore resolved the issue, not by saying that thes. 2(d) right must be content-neutral, but by asserting that it must be interpreted in conjunctionwith Canada’s values and international human rights and labour law commitments. In our view,this is the preferable approach. A content-neutral right is too often a meaningless right.(vi) The Argument That Health Services Gives Contracts Priority Over Statutes2011 SCC 20 (CanLII)[76] Our colleague argues that Health Services gives constitutional status to contracts,privileging them over statutes. The argument is based on the view that Health Services holds thatbreach of collective agreements violates s. 2(d). In fact, as discussed above, this was not thefinding in Health Services. The majority in Health Services held that the unilateral nullificationof significant contractual terms, by the government that had entered into them or that hadoverseen their conclusion, coupled with effective denial of future collective bargaining,undermines the s. 2(d) right to associate, not that labour contracts could never be interfered withby legislation.(vii) The Argument That Health Services Removes Judicial Deference to theLegislation[77] Our colleague argues that Health Services undercuts the judicial deference courtshave paid in the past to the legislature in labour relations. We observe at the outset that thisargument rests on the premise — repeatedly rejected in Health Services — that the Court was