Cuddy Chicks Ltd v Ontario (Labour Relations Board)

Cuddy Chicks Ltd v Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1991] 2 SCR 5 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the jurisdiction tribunals to hear constitutional challenges of the tribunal's enabling statute.

Cuddy Chicks Ltd v Ontario (Labour Relations Board)
Hearing: 7 November 1990
Judgment: 6 June 1991
Full case nameCuddy Chicks Limited v Ontario Relations Board and United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 175
Citations[1991] 2 SCR 5
Docket No.21675
Prior historyAPPEAL from Cuddy Chicks Ltd v Ontario (Labour Relations Board), 1989 CanLII 4139 (8 September 1989)
RulingAppeal dismissed
Court membership
Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer
Puisne Justices: Bertha Wilson, Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, William Stevenson
Reasons given
MajorityLa Forest J, joined by Lamer CJ and Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Stevenson JJ
ConcurrenceWilson J, joined by L'Heureux-Dubé J

Background

The union of several employees of Cuddy Chicks Ltd., a chicken hatcher, filed a complaint to the Labour Relations Board ("Board") that included a challenge of the constitutionality of the Board's enabling statute which excluded agricultural workers. The union claimed the exclusion violated the right to freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the right to equality under section 15. Cuddy Chicks disputed the ability of the Board to consider constitutional issues.

The Board found that it was able to consider the issue by virtue of its requirement under section 24(2) of the Charter and 52 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Ruling

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the tribunal's authority to rule in constitutional issues of its enabling statute.

The Court outlined three factors to be considered before a tribunal can hear a constitutional challenge. First, it "must already have jurisdiction over the whole of the matter before it, namely, the parties, subject matter and remedy sought".[1] Second, it the court must consider the nature of the tribunal's expertise and specialization, and finally the court must consider whether the attorney general of the province will participate in the proceedings before the Board. However, the Court limited this ability by denying the tribunal any power to strike down any part of the law. La Forest J said that "a formal declaration of invalidity is not a remedy which is available to the Board. Instead, the Board simply treats any impugned provision as invalid for the purposes of the matter before it".[2]

This test has the same three criteria as the test for a "court of competent jurisdiction" under section 24(1) of the Charter, except here it does not matter if the tribunal is a "court" or not.

The Court further held that decisions of constitionality can be reviewed on a standard of "correctness".[2]

gollark: They're also a giant company, so if it becomes profitable to just randomly sell data to anyone who pays £50, they could do that.
gollark: You're effectively trusting thousands of people and whoever else they send data to.
gollark: Why?
gollark: Probably billions.
gollark: Do you REALLY trust THOUSANDS of Google employees and also probably the NSA?

See also

References
  1. p. 14
  2. para. 17
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.