Reference re Public Services Sustainability (2015) Act

Reference re Public Services Sustainability (2015) Act

The motion was dismissed because the Unions failed to establish that their affidavits, expert reports or the Cabinet documents were necessary to decide the constitutionality of ss.7–23 of the Act; admitting that material would convert the advisory reference into a fact‑finding action, contrary to the purpose and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2021 NSCA 9
Parties
Referrer: Governor in Council; Referrer/party: Attorney General of Nova Scotia; Intervenor: Intervenor Unions; Intervenor: Attorney General of Manitoba
Court
Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Reference (constitutional) / Motion to Add Evidence and Compel Production on Amended Reference (decision)
Outcome
Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Charter S.2(d) Freedom of Association, Reference Procedure, Admissibility of Evidence, Cabinet Documents/confidentiality, Judicial Discretion
Source Language
english
Constitutional Law Labour Relations Procedural Law Charter S.2(d) Freedom of Association Reference Procedure Admissibility of Evidence Cabinet Documents/confidentiality Judicial Discretion

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Governor in Council

Referrer

Attorney General of Nova Scotia

Referrer/party

Intervenor Unions

Intervenor

Attorney General of Manitoba

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Reference (constitutional) / Motion to Add Evidence and Compel Production on Amended Reference (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether intervenor unions should be allowed to file affidavit and expert evidence on the amended reference
  2. 2 Whether the Attorney General should be ordered to add Cabinet documents to the record
  3. 3 Whether the existing record is adequate to decide the constitutional questions

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was dismissed because the Unions failed to establish that their affidavits, expert reports or the Cabinet documents were necessary to decide the constitutionality of ss.7–23 of the Act; admitting that material would convert the advisory reference into a fact‑finding action, contrary to the purpose and procedural limits of a reference, and the extensive record filed by the Attorney General was sufficient for the legal questions posed.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed

Orders

  • Motion dismissed
  • Unions not permitted to submit affidavits or expert reports on the amended reference