- The Ontario government has completely repealed Bill 124.
- Bill 124, protection be Sustainable public sector for future generation activities, 2019public sector wage increases were limited.
February 12, 2024 Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association v. Ontario (Attorney General); In ONCA 101 of 2024, a majority of the Ontario Court of Appeal (OCA) partially upheld a 2024 Ontario Superior Court of Justice (ONSC) decision. Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association v. His Majesty.2022, ONSC 6658, ONSC Bill 124; Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019 (Bill 124), violated the right to freedom of association under Article 2(d). Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (charter) declared that It is invalid and has no effect.
Although a majority of OCA agreed with ONSC, Bill 124 Although the law's application to representative employees was unconstitutional, it found that the ONSC erred in invalidating the entire law. 2(d) charter The same did not apply to unrepresented employees.
In a press release issued on February 12, 2024, following the announcement of the OCA's decision, the Government of Ontario stated that it “…will not appeal today's Court of Appeal decision and will instead take steps to repeal Bill 124. ” he said. It will be fully completed in the coming weeks. ” On February 23, 2024, the government did this. Therefore, the OCA's decision does not affect unrepresented employees and their employers.
background
On June 5, 2019, Ontario introduced Bill 124, which would cap wage increases for approximately 780,000 workers in the broad public sector at 1% per year during a three-year relief period. When the ONSC decision was announced, Bill 124 had already begun to apply to some bargaining units, but not others.
Labor groups challenged the constitutionality of Bill 124 in 10 separate applications, all of which were heard consecutively at the ONSC over 10 days in September 2022. The applicants argued that Bill 124 restricts union members' rights to freedom of association, freedom of speech, and equality.under charter. Ontario denied this, arguing in the alternative that if Bill 124 infringes any provision. charter Right, it was saved by s.one of charter as a reasonable restriction that is clearly justified in a free and democratic society.
In its decision, the ONSC found that Bill 124(i) violates the applicant's right to freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Act. charter(ii) does not violate Applicant's free speech or equality rights under these Terms; charter(iii) not saved by s.one of charter. After declaring Bill 124 invalid and of no force and effect, the court deferred consideration of remedies to further hearings at the parties' request.
We have explained the reason for ONSC in detail here.
government claim
On December 29, 2022, the government filed a notice of appeal against the ONSC decision.
In its appeal against the OCA, the government argued that ONSC erred in:
- Under treatment for s. 2(d) not as a right to a fair collective bargaining process, but as a substantive right to a particular outcome.
- It does not follow existing case law dealing with the constitutionality of wage restraint laws.and
- That's s. 1 charter analysis.
The government also declared that even though Bill 124 is void with respect to represented employees, the ONSC has declared it to be void and of no effect with respect to employees who do not have representative bargaining bodies and do not bargain collectively. claimed that it was a mistake.
OCA decision
Section 2(d) of the Charter
The OCA asserts that Bill 124 substantially impedes the ability of respondent unions and labor organizations to engage in “a meaningful 'consultation and good faith bargaining' process,” thereby violating their right to freedom of association. It was concluded that there was, and agreed with the ONSC. 2(d) charter. The OCA reached this conclusion for the following reasons:
- Bill 124 affects wages and is “the most important issue for collective bargaining.”
- Bill 124 was not introduced through any significant process of collective bargaining or meaningful consultation around Bill 124 itself.
- The broad definition of compensation significantly limited the potential bargaining space left on the collective bargaining table.
- Bill 124 lacked any meaningful means to negotiate or seek potential exemptions from the 1% cap in appropriate circumstances.and
- The 1% cap on salary and remuneration increases did not replicate collective agreements agreed in other public sector negotiations.
Section 1 of the Charter
OCA also agreed with ONSC that Bill 124 was not saved by s.one of charter, this is This requires “immediate and important ends, a reasonable link between means and ends, and minimal interference with social interests.” charter That is the right thing to do, and the benefits of this law outweigh its disadvantages. ” Unlike the ONSC, the OCA accepted that “this law pursues an urgent and important purpose.” In its opinion, “the application judge erred in his approach to analyzing whether Ontario had an urgent and substantive objective because Ontario did not sufficiently respect the policy objectives of Parliament. .”. The OCA pointed out that:
While we appreciate the Supreme Court's warning that fiscal rationality should be treated as constitutionally questionable, these are ultimately matters of degree. Fiscal prudence itself may be constitutionally questionable. However, where fiscal prudence arises from the government's determination that it faces a real possibility of fiscal crisis, courts should not engage in an overly technical analysis of the economic evidence; They should also refrain from analyzing subsequent savings and spending policies to assess the credibility of the policy. Goals stated by the government. Governments have the right to set policy objectives, and one of the core areas of policy making is finance and budgeting.
The OCA also found that the measures used by Bill 124 were “generally and reasonably related to that purpose.” Like the ONSC, the OCA found that Bill 124 was not “damage-minimizing,” but rather its “beneficial effects.” [we]Its harmful effects are greater. ”
Finally, the OCA discovered the ONSC's mistake in attacking the entire area. Law. In its view, Bill 124 applies to represented and unrepresented employees. The OCA had the following opinion: 2(d) charter Please do not apply the same to employees other than the representative. ” The OCA found that: activity It is unconstitutional only when applied to representative employees who are subject to this provision. activity'', claiming that ONSC was at fault in the collision. whole law.
Repeal of Bill 124 in its entirety
As mentioned above, on February 23, 2024, the government will completely repeal Bill 124 through a Council Order, stating that doing so will “resolve the worker inequalities created by recent court decisions.” Stated. Therefore, the OCA's decision does not affect unrepresented employees and their employers.
