Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Administrative law - Judicial review - Labour relations - Human rights - Freedom of association - Closure of business - Complaint alleging dismissal because of union activities - Scope of presumption in s. 17 of Labour Code, R.S.Q., c. C-27, and of employer’s burden of proving “good and sufficient reason” for termination of employment - Whether employer may close its business or part thereof for clearly anti-union reasons without suffering any consequences despite infringement of freedom of association of employees concerned - Whether employer shut business down, either entirely or in part, in violation of freedom of association - Whether Commission des relations du travail has power to grant necessary remedies in event of violation of freedom of association - Whether decision of Commission des relations du travail correct within meaning of Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9.

In September 2004, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 503, was certified to represent employees of Wal-Mart’s establishment in Jonquière. After several bargaining sessions, the parties could not reach an agreement, and the union filed an application under the Labour Code to refer the dispute to arbitration in order to establish the provisions of a first collective agreement. On February 9, 2005, the Minister of Labour referred the dispute to arbitration and notified the parties of the referral. That same day, Wal-Mart informed the employees that it had decided to close the store. On April 29, 2005, the Appellant’s employment, along with that of approximately 190 other employees, was terminated.

The Appellant contested the loss of his employment by filing a complaint under ss. 15 et seq. of the Labour Code. He contended that he had lost his employment because of his union activities. Wal-Mart objected to the claim, relying on the closure of the store. Several other employees filed the same complaint, but the parties agreed that a certain number of the complaints would be heard by the Commission des relations du travail first, without prejudice to the other complainants’ rights. Relying on City Buick Pontiac (Mtl) Inc. v. Roy, [1981] T.T. 22, and I.A.T.S.E., Stage Local 56 v. Société de la Place des Arts de Montréal, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 43, the Commission dismissed Mr. Plourde’s complaint on the basis that the permanent nature of the closure of the Jonquière Wal-Mart constituted a “good and sufficient reason” for the loss of employment within the meaning of s. 17 of the Labour Code. The Commission rejected the Appellant’s argument that a loss of employment in violation of freedom of association cannot constitute a loss of employment for another reason that is good and sufficient. Another appeal, in Desbiens v. Wal-Mart Canada Corporation (No. 32527), raises issues similar to the ones in this case.