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

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

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.

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.