Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan

Case Title: Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan

Official Citation (Trial Judgment): Saskatchewan v. Saskatchewan Federation of Labour, 2012 SKQB 62 (CanLII), (6 February 2012) https://canlii.ca/t/fq1gt

Official Citation (Appeals Judgment): Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan, 2013 SKCA 43 (CanLII) (7 May 2013)

Official Citation (Supreme Court Judgment): Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan, 2015 SCC 4 (CanLII) (30 January 2015)

Court: Supreme Court of Canada

Trial Chamber: Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan

Judges: Presiding Judge Justice Dennis Ball

Appeals Chambers: Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Judges: Presiding Judge Justice Stuart J. Cameron, Justice Neal Caldwell, Justice Gary A. Herauf

Final Chamber: Supreme Court of Canada

Judges: Presiding Judge Justice Rosalie Abella, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, Justice Louis LeBel, Justice Thomas Cromwell, Justice Andromache Karakatsanis, Justice Marshall Rothstein, Justice Richard Wagner

Bench Type: trial court, provincial appellate court, final appellate court

Trial Judgment Date: 6 February 2012

Appeals Judgment Date: 7 May 2013

Final Judgment Date: 30 January 2015

Petitioner / Appellant: The Saskatchewan Federation of Labour (SFL)

Respondent / Defendant: The Government of Saskatchewan

Introduction

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan (2015 SCC 4) stands as a watershed moment in Canadian constitutional and labour law. For the first time, the Court explicitly recognized that the right to strike is constitutionally protected under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees freedom of association. The ruling affirmed that the ability to withdraw labour is a fundamental aspect of collective bargaining, situating Canada alongside international norms that protect such rights.

After striking down key PSESA provisions at trial, being reversed on appeal, and finally reaching the Supreme Court, the case firmly established that the constitutional right to strike is essential to meaningful collective bargaining, while still allowing governments to regulate essential services responsibly.

Factual Background

The origins of Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan trace back to 2007, when a new provincial government assumed office in Saskatchewan with a mandate to reform public-sector labour relations, particularly in sectors deemed essential, such as health care, education, and other critical services. In 2008, the government enacted the Public Service Essential Services Act (PSESA), granting broad powers to regulate strikes. The Act required minimum service levels during any labour disruption and allowed the government to determine which services were “essential,” thereby significantly limiting the negotiating power of public-sector employees.

The Saskatchewan Federation of Labour challenged the PSESA, arguing it violated freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Charter. They contended that restricting the right to strike undermined a core tool of collective bargaining, questioning the law’s constitutionality within modern labour relations.

Procedural History

The Saskatchewan Federation of Labour and several unions challenged the law, filing suit in the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench. In 2012, the court struck down key provisions, holding that the right to strike is essential to meaningful collective bargaining. The provincial government appealed, and in 2013 the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal reversed, upholding the legislation on the grounds that the Charter did not explicitly protect strikes. The Federation then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which on January 30, 2015, in Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan, struck down the impugned provisions and affirmed that the Charter protects the right to strike, requiring any limits to be balanced against workers’ fundamental freedoms.

Legal Issues

Section 2(d) – Freedom of Association and the Right to Strike

The first question concerned whether section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees freedom of association, protects a right to strike as part of meaningful collective bargaining. At the trial stage, the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour argued that without the right to strike, collective bargaining is meaningless. They relied on earlier Supreme Court decisions including Health Services and Support—Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v British Columbia , to claim that the ability to strike is a crucial and constitutionally protected part of freedom of association.

In contrast, Saskatchewan’s government argued the Charter doesn’t guarantee a right to strike. It maintained that regulating essential services via the Public Service Essential Services Act (PSESA) was a legitimate objective to ensure public safety, and this didn’t violate section 2(d) because other forms of collective bargaining were still available.

Section 1 – Justification of Limits on the Right to Strike

The second issue arose only if the Court recognized a constitutional right to strike under section 2(d): whether the PSESA could be justified as a reasonable limit under section 1 of the Charter. Section 1 permits governments to limit rights and freedoms, provided such limitations are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society and proportionate to their objectives.

At the trial, the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour (SFL) argued the PSESA’s broad strike restrictions went too far, effectively gutting unions’ power. They claimed the government’s sweeping authority failed the minimal impairment test, as less restrictive measures could have protected essential services. The government countered that the law was a reasonable and balanced way to prevent public harm from service disruptions in critical sectors like healthcare and education, upholding the state’s duty to protect its citizens.Arguments of the Parties

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner (Saskatchewan Federation of Labour and affiliated unions):

The Saskatchewan Federation of Labour (SFL), joined by several public-sector unions, challenged the Public Service Essential Services Act (PSESA), enacted in 2008. They argued that the statute violated section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees freedom of association. In their view, freedom of association must extend beyond the right to form and maintain unions to include the ability to engage in meaningful collective bargaining. The petitioners emphasized that collective bargaining is ineffective unless workers possess the practical tools to exert pressure on employers, with strike action being the most essential of these tools. Without the right to strike, they argued, collective bargaining becomes illusory and symbolic, depriving unions of the leverage needed to achieve fair workplace conditions.

The unions further submitted that the PSESA’s restrictions were overbroad, giving the government sweeping authority to designate essential services without clear limits. This effectively deprived many public-sector employees of the ability to strike, regardless of whether their services were truly essential to public health, safety, or security. The petitioners drew on international labour law principles, such as those recognized by the International Labour Organization (ILO), which situate the right to strike as a core element of freedom of association. They also cited Canadian precedents, particularly Health Services and Support—Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia (2007 SCC 27), where the Supreme Court had affirmed that collective bargaining rights are constitutionally protected.

Respondent (Government of Saskatchewan):

The provincial government defended the PSESA by arguing that it was enacted to guarantee continuity in the delivery of essential public services. It maintained that the government has both the authority and the responsibility to ensure that sectors crucial to health, safety, and welfare are not disrupted by labour stoppages. According to the government, section 2(d) of the Charter does not explicitly enshrine a right to strike, and therefore strike activity falls within the realm of legislative regulation.

The government also invoked section 1 of the Charter, which permits limits on rights where demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. It argued that the PSESA was a proportionate response to the need for uninterrupted delivery of services in hospitals, utilities, and emergency systems. By mandating minimum service levels and restricting strike activity in designated areas, the legislation struck what the government saw as a fair balance between workers’ associational rights and the broader public interest.

Judgment 

The litigation moved through three judicial levels before being conclusively decided.

• Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench (2012): The trial court sided with the unions, ruling that freedom of association under section 2(d) includes the right to strike. It struck down the law, stating it was an over-the-top measure that made collective bargaining meaningless.
• Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (2013): The government won the appeal. The Court of Appeal ruled that freedom of association under section 2(d) doesn’t automatically include the right to strike. It upheld the law as a reasonable way to protect public health and safety.
• Supreme Court of Canada (2015): On January 30, 2015, The Supreme Court of Canada sided with the unions, ruling that the right to strike is a crucial part of freedom of association. It overturned the previous decision, striking down the law because it wasn’t a proportionate and justified limit under section 1.                   

Legal Reasoning 

The Supreme Court reasoned that freedom of association under section 2(d) must include the right to strike. This is because striking gives workers the power to achieve real results in bargaining, making collective bargaining meaningful.

The court agreed that keeping essential services running was important. However, it found the law went too far, giving the government too much power to restrict strikes. The court decided the government could have protected essential services with a less drastic law that didn’t so severely limit workers’ rights.

In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court drew on its own precedents, including Health Services (2007), which recognized collective bargaining rights, and Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada (2015 SCC 1), decided the same year, which expanded protections for associational rights within the police force. The Court also referenced international norms, emphasizing that Canada should align with the global consensus that the right to strike is integral to freedom of association.

Significance of the Case

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan is a landmark for Canadian constitutional and labour law. The Supreme Court made the right to strike a constitutional right under section 2(d). It affirmed that while governments can limit strikes in essential services, they must be proportionate and justified under section1.

Legislatively, the case reshaped canadian labour law. It affirmed a constitutional right to strike, aligning Canada with ILO standards, and required governments to balance public interest with meaningful collective bargaining. This limited legislative overreach and strengthened unions’ ability to negotiate.

Conclusion

The Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan decision constitutionally recognized the right to strike as an essential element of freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Charter, ensuring collective bargaining remains practically effective. In my view, this right is a vital mechanism that allows unions to negotiate and advocate meaningfully for their members, and overly severe limits would reduce collective bargaining to a formal exercise without real impact.

The case also highlights the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional labour rights, requiring statutory frameworks to respect these principles and aligning Canadian law with international standards. It offers guidance for policymakers and unions, emphasizing collaboration, negotiation, and respect for constitutional protections. Ultimately, the ruling affirms that protecting workers’ rights strengthens collective bargaining and supports a fair, balanced, and sustainable labour system.