Last week, the Ontario Medical Association ("OMA") challenged the constitutionality of the provincial government's decision to cut fees for doctors. The OMA is relying on section 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the "Charter") which expressly protects freedom of association – a right most often invoked by trade unions. The organization is seeking to have the court declare that its members have a constitutional right to a binding dispute mechanism for conflicts arising out of compensation issues.
This is not the first time that the OMA has launched a constitutional challenge against the provincial government over fee cuts. In July, 2012 a similar application was filed against the government. That challenge was withdrawn after negotiations resumed and an agreement was reached regarding a framework for future negotiations. While that framework was followed in this latest round of negotiations, the parties have still ended up before the courts.
The outcome of the application will be especially interesting in the context of two of the decisions in the recent Supreme Court of Canada labour trilogy. In Mounted Police Association of Ontario, the Supreme Court revisited the test established in Fraser v Ontario (Attorney General) ("Fraser") for violations of section 2(d) in a labour context. In Fraser, the Supreme Court of Canada held that government action had to render the ability of workers to engage in meaningful association "effectively impossible". In Mounted Police Association of Ontario, a majority of the Court held that the applicant only has to establish that government action "substantially interferes" with the worker's ability to engage in such association.
In Saskatchewan Federation of Labour, it is argued that the Supreme Court of Canada constitutionalized the right to strike. This decision could also have an effect on the OMA's application. For providers of essential services who cannot strike, the decision appears to have established a right to a meaningful dispute resolution process as an alternative to a strike. It will be interesting to see whether, in the eyes of the court, these decisions provide the OMA with a right to a binding dispute mechanism for disputes arising out of compensation issues.
Written with the assistance of Andrew Nicholl, articling student.
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
Norton Rose Fulbright is a global legal practice. We provide the world's pre-eminent corporations and financial institutions with a full business law service. We have more than 3800 lawyers based in over 50 cities across Europe, the United States, Canada, Latin America, Asia, Australia, Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia.
Recognized for our industry focus, we are strong across all the key industry sectors: financial institutions; energy; infrastructure, mining and commodities; transport; technology and innovation; and life sciences and healthcare.
Wherever we are, we operate in accordance with our global business principles of quality, unity and integrity. We aim to provide the highest possible standard of legal service in each of our offices and to maintain that level of quality at every point of contact.
Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright Australia, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa (incorporated as Deneys Reitz Inc) and Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, each of which is a separate legal entity, are members ('the Norton Rose Fulbright members') of Norton Rose Fulbright Verein, a Swiss Verein. Norton Rose Fulbright Verein helps coordinate the activities of the Norton Rose Fulbright members but does not itself provide legal services to clients.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.