View cases - Stewart McKelvey

activities of the “employees’ association” and to make representations, along with the right to befree from interference, coercion and discrimination in the exercise of those freedoms (para. 67).All of these protections found their way into the AEPA, which is why the trial judge gave it hisstamp of constitutional approval.[338] Now, as a result of Health Services, we are dealing with a right to a process of goodfaith collective bargaining and consultation. What protections are essential for the meaningful2011 SCC 20 (CanLII)exercise of this right for agriculture workers?[339] For a start, there is no point to having a right only in theory. Unless it is realizable, itis meaningless. There must therefore be an enforcement mechanism not only to resolvebargaining disputes, but to ensure compliance if and when a bargain is made.[340] At the moment, there is in fact a statutory mechanism in place for the enforcement ofthe AEPA — the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal. But the fact that thisTribunal exists is, by itself, of no consequence if it cannot address the rights constitutionallyguaranteed by Health Services.[341] Section 11 of the AEPA gives the Tribunal authority to grant a remedy for acontravention of the AEPA. But it is not a contravention of the AEPA to refuse to engage in agood faith process to make reasonable efforts to arrive at a collective agreement. It is thereforenot part of the Tribunal’s mandate. No mandate, no jurisdiction; no jurisdiction, no remedy.