International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union ‑‑ Canada Area Local 500 v. Canada,  1 S.C.R. 150
International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union ‑‑ Canada Area
Locals 500, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506,
508, 515 and 519; every person
ordinarily employed in longshoring or
related operations at a port on the
west coast of Canada and who is subject
to the provisions of the Maintenance
of Ports Operations Act, 1986 Appellants
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
The Attorney General of Quebec Intervener
Indexed as: International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union ‑‑ Canada Area Local 500 v. Canada
File No.: 23306.
1994: January 31.
Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
on appeal from the federal court of appeal
Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights ‑‑ Freedom of association ‑‑ Right to strike ‑‑ Back‑to‑work legislation not violating s. 2(d) of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ‑‑ Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986, S.C. 1986, c. 46.
Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights ‑‑ Life, liberty and security of the person ‑‑ Right to strike ‑‑ Back‑to‑work legislation not violating s. 7 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ‑‑ Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986, S.C. 1986, c. 46.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal,  3 F.C. 758, 96 D.L.R. (4th) 513, 148 N.R. 106, 14 C.R.R. (2d) 362, 92 CLLC ¶14, 054, dismissing the appeal and allowing the cross‑appeal from a judgment of Rouleau J.,  2 F.C. 449, 69 D.L.R. (4th) 85, 33 F.T.R. 161, 2 C.R.R. (2d) 347, 90 CLLC ¶14, 014. Appeal dismissed.
P. Nicholas Glass and Mari A. Worfolk, for the appellants.
Eric A. Bowie, Q.C., and Meg Kinnear, for the respondent.
No one appeared for the intervener.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
La Forest J. ‑‑ We are all of the view that the thrust of the reasoning applicable to s. 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms adopted in earlier decisions of this Court to determine the scope of freedom of association as it related to the right of union members to strike applies as well to the determination of the right to liberty under s. 7 for the same purpose. This approach completely defeats the general argument of the appellants for holding the Act as a whole invalid under s. 7.
So far as the specific argument that the penalty attached to the refusal to return to work is concerned, that prohibition is intended to enforce the regulatory scheme, and must be read in that context. It is not an absolute offence, but a strict liability offence. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs throughout.
Solicitors for the appellants: P. Nicholas Glass, Vancouver; Swinton & Company, Vancouver.
Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa.