To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit our website to provide feedback.
Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Freedom of association
Administrative law — Judicial review — Standard of review
(00:00:13) Facts and Procedural History
(00:02:15) Per Karakatsanis, Kasirer, Jamal and O’Bonsawin JJ.
(00:08:31) Per Per Wagner C.J. and Côté J.
(00:21:59) Reasons for Judgment: Jamal J. (Karakatsanis, Kasirer and O’Bonsawin JJ. concurring)
(00:22:06) I. Overview – 1
(00:27:19) II. Background – 10
(00:30:42) III. Analysis – 15
(00:31:25) A. The Framework for Applying Section 2(d) of the Charter – 17
(00:34:11) (1) A Review of This Court’s Jurisprudence – 21
(00:34:15) (a) Dunmore (2001) – 21
(00:36:45) (b) Health Services (2007) – 24
(00:38:03) (c) Fraser (2011) – 25
(00:41:51) (d) Mounted Police (2015) – 30
(00:43:08) (d) Mounted Police (2015) – 31
(00:43:35) (f) Saskatchewan Federation of Labour (2015) – 32
(00:43:56) (g) Summary – 33
(00:47:06) (2) Section 2(b) and Section 2(d) of the Charter Have Different Frameworks – 38
(00:50:19) B. Application – 45
(00:50:40) (1) The Association’s Claim Involves Activities Protected Under Section 2(d) – 46
(00:53:14) (2) The Legislative Exclusion Does Not Substantially Interfere With the Members of the Association’s Section 2(d) Activities – 50
(00:58:33) IV. Conclusion – 58
(00:59:10) Concurring Reasons: Côté J. (Wagner C.J. concurring)
(00:59:17) I. Introduction – 59
(01:02:00) II. Background – 64
(01:06:02) III. Judicial History – 71
(01:06:04) A. Administrative Labour Tribunal, 2016 QCTAT 6870 (Administrative Judge Zaïkoff) – 71
(01:11:27) B. Quebec Superior Court, 2018 QCCS 4781 (Lamarche J.) – 79
(01:14:04) C. Quebec Court of Appeal, 2022 QCCA 180 (Gagnon, Hogue and Beaupré JJ.A.) – 85
(01:16:17) IV. Issues – 91
(01:17:02) V. Analysis – 92
(01:17:04) A. Applicable Standard of Review – 92
(01:20:08) B. Content of Freedom of Association – 98
(01:33:46) C. The Association Is Seeking Positive State Action – 122
(01:39:28) D. Section 2(d) Framework – 133
(01:55:26) E. Does the Exclusion of the Association’s Members From the L.C. Regime Infringe Freedom of Association? – 154
(01:55:33) (1) The Association and Its Members Are Seeking Access to a Particular Labour Relations Regime, the L.C. – 154
(01:59:21) (2) The Exclusion in Section 1(l)(1) L.C. Does Not Have the Purpose or Effect of Substantially Interfering With the Freedom of Association of the Association’s Members – 160
(01:59:54) (a) The Purpose of the Exclusion in Section 1(l)(1) L.C. Is Not To Substantially Interfere With the Freedom of Association of the OSs as First‑Level Managers – 161
(02:08:06) (b) The Legislative Exclusion Does Not Have the Effect of Substantially Interfering With Freedom of Association – 172
(02:15:49) (3) On the Assumption That There Is Substantial Interference, the State Cannot Be Held Accountable for the Interference at the Third Step of the Dunmore Framework – 186
(02:24:18) VI. Disposition – 198
(02:24:40) Concurring Reasons: Rowe J.
(02:24:43) I. Introduction – 199
(02:26:43) II. The Distinction Between Positive and Negative Claims Under Section 2(d) – 203
(02:29:16) III. Reasons Why the Dunmore Framework Must Be Maintained – 208
(02:29:21) A. Nature of the Fundamental Freedoms – 208
(02:31:21) B. Absence of Direct State Action – 212
(02:35:37) C. Separation of Powers – 218
(02:37:04) IV. Conclusion – 220
