View cases - Stewart McKelvey

extent of the employer’s duties — to listen, to read, and to acknowledge receipt. No response isrequired.[330] If we compare these duties under the AEPA to the linguistic markers set out inHealth Services, we find that the following language is missing in action: “negotiate”, “meet”,“good faith”, “engage”, “exchange”, “dialogue”, “consultation”, “discussions”, “consideration”,“accommodation” and “union”. Nor does the key word “bargaining” appear.2011 SCC 20 (CanLII)[331] Noting the absence in the AEPA of Health Services’ collective bargaining vocabularyis not a criticism of the government’s motives. The AEPA was the government’s good faith —and, as the trial judge found, successful — implementation of how Dunmore had defined thescope of s. 2(d) in 2001. This does not, however, assist in determining whether it complies withthe revised scope described in Health Services. The Ontario government obviously cannot beheld responsible for the redefinition of s. 2(d) that intervened between the enactment andappellate review of the AEPA, but neither can courts disregard the applicable law because of itsinfelicitous timing. Since the applicable law for s. 2(d) is now found in Health Services, theAEPA must be scrutinized for compliance with its principles. And since, on its face, nobargaining or consultation is required by the AEPA, let alone the good faith bargaining HealthServices set out as a minimal constitutional protection, the AEPA violates s. 2(d) of the Charter.[332] Not only is there clarity of language, there is also clarity of purpose. Thegovernment’s intentions to exclude collective bargaining were forthright. The then Minister of