Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) v. Canada (Attorney General)

Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) v. Canada (Attorney General)

The Treasury Board decision of December 11, 2008 together with the cited provisions of the Expenditure Restraint Act effectively removed wages from meaningful Pay Council consideration and rendered the Pay Council process ineffective for establishing wages for a three year period; that interference was a substantial breach of s.2(d) and the state failed to justify the breach under s.1 because the evidence did not show a sufficient rational connection, minimal impairment or proportionality; the Treasury Board decision is therefore quashed. The decision did not, however, give rise to a breach of contract because s.22 of the RCMP Act grants Treasury Board express authority to set and alter pay.

Citation
2011 FC 735
Parties
Applicant (representative of RCMP Members): Robert Meredith; Applicant (representative of RCMP Members): Brian Roach; Respondent (representing Treasury Board): Attorney General of Canada
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Federal Court Reasons for Order and Order (decision)
Outcome
Application allowed with costs to the Applicants; Treasury Board decision of December 11, 2008 declared contrary to s.2(d) of the Charter and quashed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Association, Charter S.2(d), Section 1 Justification (oakes), Collective Bargaining Substitute (pay Council/srr), Expenditure Restraint Act, Breach of Contract
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Labour Law Public Law Freedom of Association Charter S.2(d) Section 1 Justification (oakes) Collective Bargaining Substitute (pay Council/srr) +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Meredith

Applicant (representative of RCMP Members)

Brian Roach

Applicant (representative of RCMP Members)

Attorney General of Canada

Respondent (representing Treasury Board)

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Federal Court Reasons for Order and Order (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Treasury Board decision of December 11, 2008 together with provisions of the Expenditure Restraint Act violated s.2(d) of the Charter
  2. 2 If a s.2(d) violation occurred, whether it is saved under s.1 of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether the Treasury Board decision constituted a breach of contract by the Crown

Ratio Decidendi

The Treasury Board decision of December 11, 2008 together with the cited provisions of the Expenditure Restraint Act effectively removed wages from meaningful Pay Council consideration and rendered the Pay Council process ineffective for establishing wages for a three year period; that interference was a substantial breach of s.2(d) and the state failed to justify the breach under s.1 because the evidence did not show a sufficient rational connection, minimal impairment or proportionality; the Treasury Board decision is therefore quashed. The decision did not, however, give rise to a breach of contract because s.22 of the RCMP Act grants Treasury Board express authority to set and alter pay.

Court Disposition

Application allowed with costs to the Applicants; Treasury Board decision of December 11, 2008 declared contrary to s.2(d) of the Charter and quashed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review allowed with costs to the Applicants
  • The Treasury Board decision of December 11, 2008 is declared contrary to subsection 2(d) of the Charter and is quashed