The partners of Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck are pleased to announce the selection of the successful 2015 Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck Human Rights/Social Justice Internship candidate, Jacob Saltiel. Jacob is in his second year of studies at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. Jacob has had excellent experience in Access to Justice issues as well as issues concerning refugee rights. He currently serves as Vice-Chair of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, uOttawa Chapter and is an assistant editor with the Ottawa Law Review. We congratulate Jacob on his achievement and look forward to working with him this summer when the internship takes place.

This is the tenth consecutive year that our firm has offered this Human Rights/Social Justice internship. Every summer, we provide paid employment to a student from the University of Ottawa Law School with placements in our firm and two social justice or human rights organizations. This year, Jacob will be working with the Workers History Museum and with the Broadbent Institute. Previous placements for our internship have included the International Development Research Centre, EGALE Canada, Amnesty International, the Ottawa Coalition to End Violence Against Women, the Council of Canadians, REACH Canada, and many other organizations which provide significant contributions in the areas of social justice and human rights.

On Sunday, March 8, 2015, the Ottawa and District Labour Council hosted its annual International Women’s Day Dinner. The sold out event was attended by community and labour activists who gathered to celebrate and reflect on women’s roles in both the labour movement and the workplace.

Keynote speaker, Cindy Oliver, President of the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators of British Columbia, gave a rousing presentation on the importance of ensuring that all work environments, especially trades, are accessible and safe for women, while highlighting the work that still needs to be done to achieve true gender equality.

The theme of the evening was “Sisters Sharing Hope Vision Solidarity” and was sponsored by the Ottawa District Labour Council Women’s Committee.

Wassim Garzouzi from our firm attended the successful event.

On February 23, 2015, Morgan Rowe spoke to the University of Ottawa Law School’s disability law class about issues related to accommodation and inclusion facing young Canadians with disabilities. Morgan’s presentation focused on disability accommodation issues in employment, education and transportation. The presentation also involved discussion of the findings of the study outlined in Morgan’s book, Exploring Disability Identity and Disability Rights Through Narratives, which was co-authored with University of Ottawa Professor Ravi Malhotra.

On March 12, 2015, Morgan Rowe spoke on a panel addressing key and emerging legal issues facing the trans* community. The panel was organized and hosted by OUTLaw, the LGBTQ Law Students’ Association at the University of Ottawa. Morgan spoke on trans* legal issues in the workplace, including discrimination in hiring and termination, workplace harassment, and the problems that arise from a medicalized approach to the duty to accommodate.

David Yazbeck is quoted in “Charter vetting challenge heading to Federal Court”, an article in the January 2015 edition of The Lawyers Weekly magazine. The article discusses the upcoming Federal Court case of Schmidt v A.G. Canada. The Applicant, Edgar Schmidt, a former Department of Justice lawyer, sued the government in 2012. The lawsuit alleges that the Minister of Justice was failing to live up to his responsibilities under s. 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act and s. 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights to vet all regulations and government bills tabled or presented by a cabinet minister in the House of Commons, and report any inconsistencies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or Canadian Bill of Rights.

David Yazbeck is representing Mr. Schmidt in the Federal Court case.

David Yazbeck recently celebrated his 10^th year anniversary as the host of the Thursday Morning Special Blend on CKCU FM. The Thursday Morning Special Blend focuses on local arts and rights issues, with plenty of live local music and interesting interviews. David regularly has representatives from the local music community, GCTC, Amnesty International, Rod Phillips on wine, and more.  David started the show in 2004, inspired by his passions for music, other arts, and progressive politics. To celebrate the 10 year anniversary, David hosted a special live show on December 18 at the West End Well Café. You can listen to the 10^th anniversary show here.

“Clearly the arc bends increasingly towards workplace justice”: The Supreme Court of Canada today released a landmark decision in Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan, ruling that section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects workers’ right to strike. In bold and sweeping reasons on behalf of the Majority, Justice Abella outlined the historical, international, and jurisprudential foundations for this right, emphasizing that a right to strike is indispensable to meaningful collective bargaining.

The case itself dealt with legislation from Saskatchewan that granted public sector employers the unilateral authority to identify which employees were prohibited from participating in a strike because they performed ‘essential services’. This legislation – which closely resembles amendments subsequently made to federal public sector labour law – departed from the conventional approach to essential services legislation across the country, in which independent labour boards possess the authority to determine what services are essential, and which employees are required to perform those services.

The Supreme Court concluded that Saskatchewan’s legislation violates the right to strike as it significantly interferes with a meaningful process of collective bargaining and that this violation cannot be saved by section 1 of the Charter. The Court explained that there is no justification for granting public employers a unilateral right to limit the right of their employees to strike. The Court further held that the legislation in this case went well beyond what was necessary to provide essential services to the public: for example, the legislation permitted employers to require workers to perform non-essential duties, and it failed to provide an alternate dispute resolution mechanism for those workers who are determined to be essential.

RavenLaw congratulates the appellants and their counsel on this historic victory for workers.

Andrew Raven, Andrew Astritis, and Morgan Rowe from our firm represented the Public Service Alliance of Canada, who appeared as an intervener before the Supreme Court of Canada in support of the right to strike.

On Tuesday, January 6, 2015, Wassim Garzouzi participated on a Labour Law Panel at the University of Ottawa alongside co-panelists Graham Clarke of the Canada Industrial Relations Board (“CIRB”) and George Vuicic, of Hicks Morley. Following an arbitration simulation, the panel discussed the practice of labour law and answered questions from students.

The event was organized by Professor Suzanne Bouclin as part of the Dispute Resolution course at the Law Faculty of the University of Ottawa.

On the heels of its recent decision in Mounted Police Association of Ontario,[1] and with more distant roots in its judgments in BC Health Services[2] and Fraser,[3] the Supreme Court of Canada has breathed new life into section 2(d) of the Charter as it relates to the Canadian workplace. The Court’s decision marks a historic moment, not only for workers, but for the continued vitality of the rights protected by the Charter.

In Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan (“SFL”), the unions challenged legislation granting public employers in the province the unilateral right to declare workers as performing “essential services”, meaning that they could not participate in an otherwise lawful strike. The Supreme Court found that this legislation violated workers’ freedom of association under 2(d) of the Charter: writing for the majority, Justice Rosalie Abella held that the right to strike is an essential part of meaningful collective bargaining and is protected by 2(d), and further held that the essential services regime in Saskatchewan could not be saved under section 1 of the Charter because, among other things, there was no independent check on employers’ unilateral right to prevent workers from striking.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court expressly overruled its prior holding in the Alberta Reference,[4] nearly 30 years earlier, that freedom of association did not protect the right to strike. The analysis of the Court in SFL relies heavily on the dissenting reasons of Chief Justice Dickson in Alberta Reference, adopting his conclusion that “effective constitutional protection of the associational interests of employees in the collective bargaining process requires concomitant protection of their freedom to withdraw collectively their services, subject to s. 1 of the Charter.”

The Court’s wholesale endorsement of Chief Justice Dickson’s dissent shows that the Charter is indeed a “living tree”, and the Court is not afraid to permit it to grow and develop over time. In her majority reasons, Justice Abella writes that, in now including the right to strike, “s. 2(d) has arrived at the destination sought by Dickson C.J. in the Alberta Reference”. This language—likening section 2(d) to a kind of traveller—is a bold affirmation that Charter rights are not stagnant and will be interpreted to give effect to their underlying values, even as our understanding and acceptance of those values evolves over time.

In this way, the judgment in SFL can be seen as further validation of the approach in BC Health Services and Canada (Attorney General) v Bedford:[5] when the Court is faced with compelling arguments supported by a strong evidentiary record, it is prepared to revisit its past conclusions in order to give life to the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter.

[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]

[1] Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 1

[2] Health Services and Support — Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia, 2007 SCC 27

[3] Health Services, Ontario (Attorney General) v. Fraser, 2011 SCC 20

[4] Alberta Reference (Reference re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313)

[5] Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72

On January 7 and 8, 2015, Andrew Astritis appeared in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia to argue a judicial review application. The application seeks to overturn a decision of an arbitrator on the right of employees to accumulate vacation credits.