Journal Article/Book Review
wrongful termination, Supreme Court of Canada, Plourde v Walmart, Honda Canada v Keays, collective bargaining, human rights, legislation, disability discrimination
The author concludes that the Supreme Court of Canada's narrow interpretations in Wal-Mart and Honda undermine the purposes of collective bargaining and human rights legislation, respectively Wal-Mart involves an unfair labour practice complaint following the closing of a store in Jonquibre, Quebec. The author contests the analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada, as being far removed from the context of the real difficulties in dealing with determined anti-union employers, instead facilitating statutory evasion. Honda involves a claim for wrongful dismissal, where the issue at the Supreme Court of Canada level is one of remedy, premised on the dismissal amounting to disability discrimination in breach of human rights legislation. The author criticizes the majority holding that the case did not involve such a breach, as flying in the face of well-established human rights law.
Notes from Prof. Pothier
This is a revised and expanded version of a paper that formed the basis of a presentation at the Inaugural Innis Christie Symposium in Labour and Employment Law held at the Schulich School of Law, Halifax, Nova Scotia on October 23, 2010. I would like to acknowledge the helpful comments of my co-panelists, Joseph Liberman and Ronald Pizzo, as well as other participants in the symposium. Ultimately, though, the views expressed are, of course, solely my own.
Dianne Pothier, "Wrongful Termination Claims in the Supreme Court of Canada: Coming Up Short" (2011) 34:1 Dal LJ 51.