Case information

Administrative law ? Boards and tribunals ? Jurisdiction ? Whether Administrative Labour Tribunal has jurisdiction, under Act respecting the professional status and conditions of engagement of performing, recording and film artists and Act to establish the Administrative Labour Tribunal, to decide complaint filed by artists’ association alleging that producer hindered its activities, negotiated in bad faith and attempted to evade legislative scheme governing their relationship ? Act respecting the professional status and conditions of engagement of performing, recording and film artists, CQLR, c. S 32.1, ss. 7, 11.1, 11.2, 30, 56, 58 and 59.1 ? Act to establish the Administrative Labour Tribunal, CQLR, c. T 15.1, Schedule 1, s. 26.

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.

In August 2016, the Administrative Labour Tribunal (ALT) granted a motion filed by the applicant, Union des artistes (UDA), and declared that the permanent dancers of the respondent, Compagnie Marie Chouinard (CMC), were artists within the meaning of the Act respecting the professional status and conditions of engagement of performing, recording and film artists, CQLR, c. S 32.1 (ASA). In the ALT’s view, the conditions set out in s. 6 of the ASA for the application of that statute were met, since each artist had signed an engagement contract with CMC for a one year fixed term that was not automatically renewable. The ALT therefore ordered CMC to comply with the scheme for negotiating a group agreement set out in the ASA, to begin negotiating with UDA and to conduct the negotiations in good faith. That decision is currently the subject of an application for judicial review. On October 27, 2016, before the negotiations began, CMC sent out a memorandum to inform its employees who qualified as artists that when their individual contracts of employment expired, a new contract of employment for an indeterminate term would have to be signed. The effect of that decision by CMC was to avoid the application of the ASA, although the Labour Code, CQLR, c. C 27, remained applicable to the employees’ situation. In response, UDA filed a complaint with the ALT alleging that CMC was hindering its activities and negotiating in bad faith. It also filed a motion for a safeguard order. On November 29, 2016, the ALT rendered a decision granting a preliminary exception filed by CMC to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Superior Court dismissed UDA’s application for judicial review, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.