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 appeal from BC Court of Appeal
ruling= Faculty appeal dismissed
ratio=
SCC=1989-1990
Majority=La Forest J.
JoinMajority=Dickson C.J. and Gonthier JJ.
Concurrence=Wilson J.
JoinConcurrence=L'Heureux‑Dubé J.
Concurrence2=Sopinka J.
Concurrence3=Cory J.
NotParticipating=
LawsApplied=

"Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Assn. v. Douglas College", [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal.

Background

Douglas College is a post-secondary school operated by the province of British Columbia as a Crown corporation under the "College and Institute Act". The school's collective agreement included a provision for mandatory retirement at age 65. Two professors challenged this provision before the labour arbitration tribunal, claiming it violated the equality rights guarantee under section 15(1) of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms".

The professors argued that the college constituted a public institution and therefore was subject to the "Charter", and that the collective agreement constituted "law" within meaning of the "Charter".

The arbitrator agreed and found that the law violated section 15(1) of the "Charter". The school appealed the decision on the grounds that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine the constitutional issue. The British Columbia Court of Appeal found that the tribunal had jurisdiction and upheld the decision of the tribunal. The school appealed the decision in the Supreme Court of Canada.

The issues before the Supreme Court were:
# whether the "Charter" applied to the collective agreement;
# whether the retirement provision was "law" as used in s. 15(1) of the "Charter";
# whether the tribunal appointed to resolve labour grievances was a "court of competent jurisdiction" under s. 24(1) of the "Charter" so that it could determine the constitutionality of the statutory provision; and
# whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and determine such a grievance.

Opinion of the Court

Justice La Forest, writing for the majority, dismissed the appeal by the college. The majority held that although a tribunal has the power to treat any invalid law that it may be asked to apply as having no force or effect, it may not necessarily be able to apply the "Charter" or grant a remedy under section 24(1) of the "Charter". A tribunal only has power to the extent that it has been conferred to it by law.

ee also

* List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (Lamer Court)
* "Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board)", [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5
* "Tétreault-Gadoury v. Canada (Employment and Immigration Commission)", [1991] 2 S.C.R. 22

External links

*