Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board)

Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board)

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

Contents

Background

The union of several employees of Cuddy Chicks, a chicken hatcher, filed a complaint to the Labour Relations Board that included a challenge of the constitutionality of the Board's enabling statute which excluded agricultural workers. The union claimed that 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 s.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. The Court, however, limited this ability by denying the tribunal any power to strike down any part of the law. La Forest stated 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]

See also

References

  1. ^ p. 14
  2. ^ a b para. 17

External links


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Поможем решить контрольную работу

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Canada Labour Relations Board v. Paul L'Anglais Inc. — Canada Labour Relations Board v. Paul L Anglais Inc. [1983] 1 S.C.R. 147 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada constitutional decision on the jurisdiction of the superior courts to hear constitutional arguments. The unanimous Court found that… …   Wikipedia

  • Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Assn. v. Douglas College — SCCInfoBox case name=Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Assn. v. Douglas College full case name=Douglas College v. Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Association heard date=May 18, 19, 1989 decided date=December 6, 1990 citations= [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570 history=on… …   Wikipedia

  • Tétreault-Gadoury v. Canada (Employment and Immigration Commission) — [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1110 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the jurisdiction of tribunals to hear Charter challenges. The Court held that the board of referees under unemployment insurance legislation was able to hear an equality right …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”