29:
234:
It was noted that the government was under considerable pressure and had cut costs in many areas. The government cut school funding, froze wages, closed hospital beds, and laid off thousands of employees. Consequently, Binnie observed that all these actions of the government indicated a fiscal crisis
192:
An arbitration board found in favour of the union, ruling that section 15 was violated as the law discriminated against women employees by subjecting them to a larger share of the brunt of the cuts. The further found that it could not be saved under section 1 because the government failed to consider
240:
the financial health of the province is the golden goose on which all else relies. The government in 1991 was not just debating rights versus dollars, but rights versus hospital beds, rights versus layoffs, rights versus jobs, rights versus education and rights versus social welfare. The requirement
224:
Concerning section 1, Binnie found that the legislation was reasonable limitation on the rights of workers. He rejected the union's argument that financial circumstances can never be the basis of a limitation of rights, rather where there are exceptional circumstances, such as a financial crisis,
181:
In 1991, however, the provincial government had a $ 120 million deficit and was undergoing a significant financial crisis. Consequently, they enacted legislation that would cancel the agreement and would retroactively cancel the arrears already owed to the employees from the previous three years
246:
In considering the degree of impairment of equality rights, Binnie found that the impairment was not more than necessary as the cuts for the $ 24 million would have had to be taken from elsewhere and would likely have caused "even greater grief and social disruption." When asking whether the
178:(N.A.P.E.) in 1988 which adjusted the wages for hospital employees in areas that were typically staffed by women to be comparable to salaries earned by male-dominated positions. The agreement specified that the wages would be increased over a five-year period ending in 1992.
200:
overturned the board. A violation of section 15 was found but that it was a reasonable limitation to the rights of the workers under section 1. The judge stated that when balancing the rights between different groups in society, deference should be given to the government.
225:"elected governments must be accorded significant scope to take remedial measures, even if the measures taken have an adverse effect on a Charter right." However, Binnie made sure to distinguish a previous observation made earlier in
220:
The ruling of the unanimous court was given by
Justice Binnie. He agreed with the lower court's ruling that the legislation had the effect of disproportionately harming women, and that it was a violation section 15(1) of the Charter.
211:
The issue before the
Supreme Court of Canada was whether the lower courts erred in their ruling that the violation was within the reasonable limits of section 1. In a unanimous decision the appeal was dismissed.
231:(2003), where it was stated that "budgetary considerations in and of themselves cannot normally be invoked as a free-standing pressing and substantial objective for the purposes of s.1 of the Charter".
186:
159:
175:
259:
247:
legislation impairs as little as possible, noted Binnie, the consequences for other social, educational, and economic programs must be taken into account.
300:
205:
64:
197:
155:
305:
241:
to reduce expenditures, and the allocation of the necessary cuts, was undertaken to promote other values of a free and democratic society.
310:
250:
Consequently, though the violation was serious and regrettable, Binnie found that it must be justified under section 1 of the
Charter.
315:
185:
The union began an action against the government on the basis that the legislation discriminated against women and violated
171:
154:
decision where the Court held that a fiscal crisis can be the basis for justifying a violation of rights in the
272:
151:
34:
227:
28:
280:
89:
147:
Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v
Newfoundland and Labrador Assn of Public and Private Employees
104:
55:
3 S.C.R. 381; 2004 SCC 66; (2004), 242 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 113; (2004), 244 D.L.R. (4th) 294
22:
Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v
Newfoundland and Labrador Assn of Public and Private Employees
276:
120:
96:
294:
112:
100:
50:
76:
A Charter violation can be justified under section 1 in the case of a fiscal crisis.
124:
116:
108:
285:
235:
that would amount to a "pressing and substantial objective".
176:
Newfoundland
Association of Public and Private Employees
260:
List of
Supreme Court of Canada cases (McLachlin Court)
208:
174:government entered a pay equity agreement with the
135:
130:
80:
70:
59:
49:
42:
21:
193:more minimally impairing means to find the money.
8:
206:Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal
65:Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal
198:Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court
156:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
182:which amounted to about $ 24 million.
18:
7:
14:
301:Section Fifteen Charter case law
27:
63:Judgment for the Crown in the
1:
306:Supreme Court of Canada cases
150:, 3 S.C.R. 381 is a leading
16:Supreme Court of Canada case
332:
311:Labour relations in Canada
45:Judgment: October 28, 2004
316:2004 in Canadian case law
172:Newfoundland and Labrador
85:
75:
26:
273:Supreme Court of Canada
152:Supreme Court of Canada
35:Supreme Court of Canada
275:decision available at
43:Hearing: May 12, 2004
228:Nova Scotia v. Martin
136:Unanimous reasons by
90:Beverley McLachlin
143:
142:
105:Michel Bastarache
323:
189:of the Charter.
94:Puisne Justices:
81:Court membership
31:
19:
331:
330:
326:
325:
324:
322:
321:
320:
291:
290:
268:
256:
218:
170:The provincial
168:
121:Marie Deschamps
97:Frank Iacobucci
92:
44:
38:
17:
12:
11:
5:
329:
327:
319:
318:
313:
308:
303:
293:
292:
289:
288:
283:
267:
266:External links
264:
263:
262:
255:
252:
244:
243:
217:
214:
167:
164:
141:
140:
137:
133:
132:
128:
127:
87:Chief Justice:
83:
82:
78:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
61:
57:
56:
53:
47:
46:
40:
39:
32:
24:
23:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
328:
317:
314:
312:
309:
307:
304:
302:
299:
298:
296:
287:
286:NAPE reaction
284:
282:
278:
274:
271:Full text of
270:
269:
265:
261:
258:
257:
253:
251:
248:
242:
238:
237:
236:
232:
230:
229:
222:
215:
213:
209:
207:
202:
199:
194:
190:
188:
187:section 15(1)
183:
179:
177:
173:
165:
163:
161:
157:
153:
149:
148:
138:
134:
131:Reasons given
129:
126:
122:
118:
114:
113:Louise Arbour
110:
106:
102:
101:John C. Major
98:
95:
91:
88:
84:
79:
74:
69:
66:
62:
60:Prior history
58:
54:
52:
48:
41:
37:
36:
30:
25:
20:
249:
245:
239:
233:
226:
223:
219:
210:
203:
195:
191:
184:
180:
169:
146:
145:
144:
93:
86:
33:
125:Morris Fish
117:Louis LeBel
295:Categories
166:Background
109:Ian Binnie
160:section 1
139:Binnie J.
51:Citations
254:See also
158:through
216:Reasons
71:Holding
281:CanLII
277:LexUM
279:and
204:The
196:The
119:,
297::
162:.
123:,
115:,
111:,
107:,
103:,
99:,
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
