Delisle+v.+Canada

Delisle c. Canada Jurisdiction || Supreme Court Canada; 1999 || Facts || Appellant states that purpose of the exclusion from the PSSRA was to reinforce the federal government’s long-standing policy of preventing or impeding the formation of RCMP associations -   appellant ** does not ** seek to bargain collectively; his position is that the very purpose of the impugned legislation is to interfere with his ability to participate in an informal association – does not seek a // protection // against management interference - seeks end to interference sanctioned by the impugned legislation in relation to the basic associational efforts by RCMP members  || Issue(s) || (1)   Do s.6 of the // Canada Labour Code // and para. (e) of the definition of “employee” at s.2 of the // Public Service Staff Relations Act // infringe or deny the appellant’s freedom of expression guaranteed in s.2(b) of the // Charter // ? (2)   Do s.6 of the // Canada Labour Code // and para.(e) of the definition of “employee” at s.2 of the // PSSRA // infringe or deny the ** appellant’s freedom of association guaranteed in s.2(d) of the // Charter //** ? (3)   Do s.6 of the // Canada Labour Code // and para.(e) of the definition of “employee” at s.2 of the // PSSRA // infringe upon the appellant’s equality rights guaranteed in s.15(1) of the // Charter // ? (4)   If the answer to questions 1, 2 or 3 is answered in the affirmative, can s.6 of the // Canada Labour Code // and para. (e) of the // Public Staff Relations Act // be ** justified under s.1 of the // Charter? //**  ||  Holding  || (1)   Not necessary to answer this question (2)   With respect to s.6, not necessary to answer this question. With respect to para.(e) – ** yes, does infringe s.2(d) ** (3)   Not necessary to answer this question (4)   No – not justified under s.1 Court struck down para.(e) of the definition of “employee” in s.2(1) in the PSSRA as being contrary to the Charter and thus of no force or effect under s.52 of the // Constitution Act, 1982 //. - declaration of invalidity suspended for 1 year || Ratio || appeal essentially about the ** basic freedom of employees to associate informally together in pursuit of their mutual interests ** -   established that s.2(d) protects the right to **__ be __** in an association ( // Alberta Reference) // -   purpose of the freedom of association guarantee is to preserve & promote the existence of associations which assist in the attainment of individual goals and self-fulfilment Is that exclusion of RCMP members from the definition of “employee” in s.2(1) of the PSSRA is to ensure the continued vulnerability of RCMP members to management interference with their efforts to participate in member associations? -   a court must intervene where an invalid purpose for enacting the legislation has been shown because the legislature has exceeded its jurisdiction – must consider whether the // purpose // of para. (e) infringes freedom of association, not whether the PSSRA as a whole does so    (1)    Parliament excluded RCMP labour negations until a time when it could fully resolve the issue (2)   Parliament anticipated passing a separate labour relations statute for members of the RCMP (3)   Parliament was studying the appropriateness of including RCMP members within a statutory labour relations regime at the time of the enactment (4)   Parliament had concluded a study which stated that members of the RCMP did not require freedom of association protections unlike most Public Service employees (5)   Parliament understood the PSSRA as a collective bargaining statute and excluded RCMP because it did not wish them to engage in these types of activities (6)   Parliament intentionally chose to exclude RCMP members from PSRRA because it wished to maintain the inherent difficulty faced by RCMP members in attempting to associate together to confront management on more equal terms -   current policy was founded upon the ** fear ** that the organization RCMP members into an association would lead to members experiencing a **// “divided loyalty” //** or conflict of interest between their allegiance to their fellow workers and their required obedience to superior orders At the time of the enactment of the PSSRA, it simply excluded members from its application, following decades of policy. ** Therefore, did not contravene s.2(d) of Charter. **  -    Basis for recommendation that RCMP be excluded was outlined by the findings of the Preparatory Committee on Collective Bargaining in the Public Service (1965) -   Concern that membership in and allegiance to an employee association was incompatible with the RCMP’s quasi-military employment hierarchy -   Nature of their conduct is subject to military or similar codes of law and discipline -   Divided loyalty would result from the process of RCMP members associating together and, it was anticipated, developing an antagonism towards management What is the purpose of para.(e)? Does it contravene s.2(d) of the Charter? -   to ensure that RCMP members remained unassociated in the face of management, with a view of protecting the integrity of the RCMP hierarchy against the perceived threat of a divided loyalty among its members -   RCMP would disobey superior orders if they were both union members and members of a quasi-military institution, and would be unable to exercise their duties impartially and effectively in controlling the illegal acts of other workers YES!! The impugned provision ** does ** infringe on s.2 (d) [para.107] (1) para. (e)’s anti-associational purpose serves a ** broader purpose **, which **__ is __** sufficiently important to justify overriding the appellant’s freedom of association and freedom of expression. The broader purpose is to secure, for all Canadians, a national police force that is both stable and impartial (2) (a) rational connection - is there really a logical causal link between blocking access of RCMP members to the PSSRA in its entirety? - the unionization and implementation of limited collective bargaining arrangements might actually ** reduce ** the risk of more drastic bargaining tactics, precisely because RCMP members would have an effective vehicle for communicating with management - actively supporting the suppression of employee’s associational activity by management causes exactly the type of problem sought to be avoided by the phenomenon of suppression - legislation fails the minimal impairment of the proportionality analysis Important point is that dissatisfaction already exists amongst the RCMP. The denial of statutory protections for RCMP member associations ** does not prevent ** a “divided loyalty”. The dual allegiance of RCMP members to their police superiors and to their fellow employees is thus a ** contemporary reality **, not an anticipated harm. -   reasonable to expect an increase in employee dissatisfaction over time VALID OBJECTIVE of securing a stable and reliable RCMP ** can be achieved through another legislative mechanism ** that is ** less restrictive of free association ** than the existing complete exclusion from the PSSRA. - the **// key point for the __ purpose __ of this case //** is that the ** freedom of employees ** to join an association of their choice is of such ** fundamental importance ** that it should not be as lightly set aside as it was here [para.140] ||
 * WHY ** did parliament decide to exclude RCMP members from PSSRA at the time of enactment?
 * [above do __ not __ contravene s. 2(d) of the Charter] **
 * [does contravene s.2(d) of the Charter] **
 * // SO, //**** did the legislature want RCMP members to // remain // vulnerable?   **
 * s.1 analysis: **
 * (1) objective sought to be served by the limitation must be of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected freedom or right **
 * (2) respondent must demonstrate that the means chosen in order to achieve this objective are proportionate ** ( // R. v. Oakes) //