Christy Clark Just Got Laughed Out of the Supreme Court of Canada

22 posts / 0 new
Last post
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture
Christy Clark Just Got Laughed Out of the Supreme Court of Canada

Laughing

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

After 14 years the illegal stripping of terms and conditions of employment from a negotiated contract has finally been ended.  A whole generation of kids has gone through our school system since the Liberals breached the teacher's Charter rights. 

Once again a decision about rights from the BC Court of Appeal has been over turned by the SCC. This is a great win for the labour movement.

Quote:

The B.C. government lawyers made their case and answered some questions from the justices. Then the justices adjourned for a few minutes, came back, and laughed the government out of court.

Think about that. They went into their chambers, they must have shaken their heads at one another, and they agreed by seven to two that the B.C. government had been wasting everyone’s time and money since 2002 defending a patent violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court wasn’t going to waste any more time by deliberating until spring and releasing a written judgment (which both parties had expected).

That was a quiet rejection not only of Christy Clark, who was Gordon Campbell’s education minister when the government ripped up teachers’ contracts, but also a dismissal of the B.C. Court of Appeal, which had overturned B.C. Supreme Court Justice Susan Griffin’s original decision in favour of the teachers.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2016/11/11/Clark-Supreme-Court-Teachers/

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The original court decision that the Court of Appeal overturned has been restored and it was well written and stands as good law. It contains a good summary of how it took 14 years to get a final decision. After losing in the SCC the BC Liberals had the audacity to reenact a new statute that mirrored the law that the SCC had just overturned. Thus the reason for laughing them out of court.

Quote:

[2] In January 2002, the provincial government of British Columbia introduced legislation that represented a new agenda for dealing with public sector workers in the fields of education and health services, by way of Bills 27, 28, and 29. These were unionized workers, and the legislation dealt with matters that were the subject of collective agreements.

[3] The health services legislation was challenged by various health workers‟ associations as being contrary to the freedom to associate, constitutionally protected by s. 2 (d) of the Charter.

[4] Initially the health workers were unsuccessful at the trial and appellate levels, and the health services legislation, Bill 29, was upheld.

[5] The case went on to the Supreme Court of Canada where the workers ultimately prevailed. In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of Canada held that collective bargaining was protected by s. 2 (d) of the Charter: Health Services and Support - Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia, 2007 SCC 27, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 391 [Health Services]. Professor Hogg described the impact of this decision as “a 180-degree shift”: Peter W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, loose-leaf, 5th ed. (Toronto, Ont.: Carswell, 2007), ch. 44 at 44-6. The Supreme Court of Canada had previously held that collective bargaining was not protected by the Charter guaranteed freedom of association: Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada v. Northwest Territories (Commissioner), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 367.

[6] In Health Services, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down several provisions of Bill 29 as being unconstitutional by reason of the legislation‟s British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia Page 7 interference with the workers‟ freedom to associate guaranteed by s. 2 (d) of the Charter. Some provisions were found not to be unconstitutional.

[7] The teachers brought a court challenge to Bill 27 and Bill 28, similar to the challenge brought by the health services‟ workers. This challenge waited on the sidelines while the Health Services case wound its way through the courts. Now the challenge to the legislation affecting teachers‟ collective bargaining has come before this court for decision.

[8] In this case the legislation dealing with teachers was modelled on the same provincial government theory as in Health Services, namely, that the government had the right to impose legislation which unilaterally overrode provisions of existing collective agreements, and which prohibited collective bargaining on the same subject matters in the future. The legislation was enacted without any prior consultation with the teachers‟ union.

[9] For the reasons that follow, I have found that most, but not all, of the challenged legislation is unconstitutional as violating the s. 2 (d) freedom to associate and to engage in collective bargaining. Specifically, I have found that ss. 8, 9 and 15 of Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 3 [PEFCA] (Bill 28) and s. 5 of the Education Services Collective Agreement Amendment Act, 2004, S.B.C. 2004, c. 16 [Amendment Act] are unconstitutional. I have not found s. 4 of Education Services Collective Agreement Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 1 [ESCAA] (Bill 27) to be unconstitutional.

https://bctf.ca/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=23161&libID=23152

quizzical

how much of our money have they wasted fighting against ourselves?

Unionist

WOW, fantastic, thank you krop! This news didn't even make the radar of the MSM. You made my day!

Martin N.

I'm no fan of the BCTF but hopefully the SCC decision will benefit students eventually. There is never any funding for education or healthcare but there is always enough for executive jets and advertising.

Christy is never shy to spend public funds to get her photo ops but in reality, the NDP are no better in the entitlements department. The public needs leaders with the moral fibre and fiscal discipline to direct public resources to public services, not entitlements. Then, the courts will not be required.

Unionist

"Entitlements"? Holy fuck. How low we have sunk.

quizzical

wtf does "moral fibre" mean?

and what entitlements are being talked about here ffs?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Martin N. wrote:

I'm no fan of the BCTF but hopefully the SCC decision will benefit students eventually. There is never any funding for education or healthcare but there is always enough for executive jets and advertising. Christy is never shy to spend public funds to get her photo ops but in reality, the NDP are no better in the entitlements department. The public needs leaders with the moral fibre and fiscal discipline to direct public resources to public services, not entitlements. Then, the courts will not be required.

This case is about a government passing a law that said we can change the collective agreement that you negotiated with us by passing a law. That breached the union members Charter rights. 

But I did get that you are no fan of the union and don't like either the NDP or something you call entitlements. WTF did any of that drivel have to do with this SCC decision upholding the rights of Canadian workers.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Was there really laughter, though?  Audible laughter of the kind any human would recognize as laughter?

Or was the proposed case just dismissed?

Unionist

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Was there really laughter, though?  Audible laughter of the kind any human would recognize as laughter?

Yes, there was. You can watch and hear it on CPAC. It was absolutely astounding. All justices guffawed. Audibly. And threw stones.

swallow

Thanks for sharing this news kropotkin. 

Unionist wrote:
"Entitlements"? Holy fuck. How low we have sunk.

How do you think we can get back out of the mire? The site seems irredeemable to me at the moment.

Unionist

swallow wrote:

Thanks for sharing this news kropotkin. 

Unionist wrote:
"Entitlements"? Holy fuck. How low we have sunk.

How do you think we can get back out of the mire? The site seems irredeemable to me at the moment.

Ignoring the trolls and nutbars, and carrying on the conversation as if they never posted, is generally the best way I think. I slipped up this time. Also, multiplication of useless redundant threads makes discussion difficult. Not sure how to deal with that other than pleading with the perps to think twice. And maybe this "linear" discussion model is obsolete - but I don't know how to improve on it.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

The Premier switched gears immediately, claiming that she was "excited" to be dealing with improvements to education, new special needs teachers, class size changes, etc, when anyone paying the slightest attention knows that SHE was the Minister of Education that got all these atrocities against children started, and she was the one who blew zillions of dollars of public money fighting this well-thought decision, etc.

What a fucking lizard.

Martin N.

Unionist wrote:
"Entitlements"? Holy fuck. How low we have sunk.

So you don't think Christy Clark flying to and from photo ops by exec jet is not an entitlement? She has no funding for students but lots for entitlements.

Martin N.

quizzical wrote:

wtf does "moral fibre" mean?

and what entitlements are being talked about here ffs?


The moral fibre to resist entitlements for politicians and insiders and direct resources into education.

Martin N.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

I'm no fan of the BCTF but hopefully the SCC decision will benefit students eventually. There is never any funding for education or healthcare but there is always enough for executive jets and advertising. Christy is never shy to spend public funds to get her photo ops but in reality, the NDP are no better in the entitlements department. The public needs leaders with the moral fibre and fiscal discipline to direct public resources to public services, not entitlements. Then, the courts will not be required.

This case is about a government passing a law that said we can change the collective agreement that you negotiated with us by passing a law. That breached the union members Charter rights. 

But I did get that you are no fan of the union and don't like either the NDP or something you call entitlements. WTF did any of that drivel have to do with this SCC decision upholding the rights of Canadian workers.


This SCC decision will mean more resources for education. Smaller class sizes and more teachers means better education. Sorry you only consider "the rights of Canadian workers" as an issue here.

Martin N.

Unionist wrote:

swallow wrote:

Thanks for sharing this news kropotkin. 

Unionist wrote:
"Entitlements"? Holy fuck. How low we have sunk.

How do you think we can get back out of the mire? The site seems irredeemable to me at the moment.

Ignoring the trolls and nutbars, and carrying on the conversation as if they never posted, is generally the best way I think. I slipped up this time. Also, multiplication of useless redundant threads makes discussion difficult. Not sure how to deal with that other than pleading with the perps to think twice. And maybe this "linear" discussion model is obsolete - but I don't know how to improve on it.

 

Yeah, I guess if demanding everyone agree with you and labelling others doesn't work, you don't know how to improve on it. Your attitude is the reason Americans elected an orange-haired whackadoodle as President. Sneering at anyone who doesn't meet your extremist lefty standards. Silencing discussions rather than supporting them.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Martin, you got the reaction you got because, when you used the term "entitlements", it sounded like you were talking about social spending.  Pretty sure everybody here agrees with you that the premier and her cabinet should not be able to lavishly spend public funds on their own sense of personal entitlement.

It was just the wording you chose, not your actual intent.

Martin N.

Ken Burch wrote:

Martin, you got the reaction you got because, when you used the term "entitlements", it sounded like you were talking about social spending.  Pretty sure everybody here agrees with you that the premier and her cabinet should not be able to lavishly spend public funds on their own sense of personal entitlement.

It was just the wording you chose, not your actual intent.

Thanks, Ken. One of my more extreme hobby horses is that if the senior ranks of the various entities that depend on the public purse were less self-entitled, no child will need to go to school hungry and no child will flounder about alone in school because the school board has purloined the funding for teaching assistants into their general budget.

I live in the real world we here we gauge our victories in prying a teachers aide off playground duty back to helping the vulnerable. It's a constant struggle against a senior administration that relentlessly grinds students resources while enjoying expenses account lunches themselves. I've planted the metaphorical axe in more desks than are easily counted over entitlements, mostly to no avail. I don't know what that hostile, self righteous prat upthread is on about but may remind readers that the site is "rabble" not "shutting down discussion of viewpoints we disagree with".

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Martin N. wrote:
kropotkin1951 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

I'm no fan of the BCTF but hopefully the SCC decision will benefit students eventually. There is never any funding for education or healthcare but there is always enough for executive jets and advertising. Christy is never shy to spend public funds to get her photo ops but in reality, the NDP are no better in the entitlements department. The public needs leaders with the moral fibre and fiscal discipline to direct public resources to public services, not entitlements. Then, the courts will not be required.

This case is about a government passing a law that said we can change the collective agreement that you negotiated with us by passing a law. That breached the union members Charter rights. 

But I did get that you are no fan of the union and don't like either the NDP or something you call entitlements. WTF did any of that drivel have to do with this SCC decision upholding the rights of Canadian workers.

This SCC decision will mean more resources for education. Smaller class sizes and more teachers means better education. Sorry you only consider "the rights of Canadian workers" as an issue here.

That is because the case was about the union and its members being told they could not bargain for better learning conditions for the children. The reason why it will mean more resources is because the government has to live up to the collective agreement that the teachers negotiated that provided more resources for kids. The SCC did not tell the government how to spend money in education it told them they have to live up to the collective agreement that was freely negotiated. The children have the BCTF to thank for having negotiated the extra resources and the BC Liberals to blame for the 14 years that they refused to live up to a contract.

quizzical

Martin N. wrote:
quizzical wrote:
wtf does "moral fibre" mean?

and what entitlements are being talked about here ffs?

The moral fibre to resist entitlements for politicians and insiders and direct resources into education.

ok.

odd choice of wording imv though.