View cases - Stewart McKelvey

They base their view on a statement made by the Minister (at the time) that the Act was meant tomeet the obligations set by this Court in Dunmore. They say because the Minister used the word“meaningful” she intended that the AEPA would protect collective bargaining, as the majority ofthis Court deemed necessary in Health Services. They say this despite the fact that HealthServices had not yet been written or even argued before this Court. They say this despite anexplicit statement made by the Minister, which they quote, that stated that the AEPA was not2011 SCC 20 (CanLII)intended to “extend collective bargaining to agricultural workers”. They suggest that theMinister was only disclaiming Wagner Act collective bargaining, rather than collectivebargaining as they frame the term (para. 106).[289] As with the words of the AEPA, I read the words of the Minister plainly as presented.The comments quoted by the Chief Justice and LeBel J. indicate that the AEPA was intended tomeet the obligations in Dunmore, which did not include an obligation on employers to engage incollective bargaining. Given the absence of any requirement for collective bargaining in eitherDunmore or the AEPA the Minister’s comments support a plain reading of s. 5 as imposing onlya duty to “listen to” or “read” the representations and “give the association a writtenacknowledgment” if the representations are made in writing.[290] As the Chief Justice and LeBel J. are of the view that agricultural employers inOntario have a duty of collective bargaining, the appropriate remedy would have to be adeclaration that the AEPA is unconstitutional in its present form and expressly reading in wordsempowering the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal to order employers toengage in collective bargaining. With respect, my colleagues’ approach goes beyond the normal