Summary of Meredith v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 2
______________________________________________________________________________
Members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police raised whether the Expenditure Restraint Act
(ERA) violated their freedom of association guaranteed by section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms. The Members argued that the ERA violated the section 2(d) Charter
protected right to collective bargaining by rolling back scheduled wage increases for RCMP
members without prior consultation.
Members of the RCMP are in a difficult employment position. They are not permitted to
unionize or attempt to bargain collectively. Wages are determined through a complicated scheme
involving different steps and committees with the responsibility ultimately falling on the
Treasury Board.
In June of 2008, the Treasury Board announced it would implement a recommendation from one
of the committees to raise wages 3.32%, 3.5% and 2% for 2008-10 among other increases. After
the economic turmoil in 2008, the Government of Canada decided to introduce “wage restraint”.
Shortly thereafter the Treasury Board reconsidered its announcement. While proposals went back
and forth, the ERA was enacted.
The ERA capped increases in compensation for wage increases in the public sector and
prohibited other kinds of compensation with an exception to the RCMP if the Treasury Board
was in the opinion that the change “is critical to support transformation initiates relating to the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police”.
The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada framed the two issues to be decided as this:
1. Did the ERA infringe the section 2(d) right to freedom of association, which guarantees
the right to associate and pursue workplace goals through bargaining?
2. If so was the ERA a reasonable limited prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified
in a free and democratic society under section 1 of the Charter?
{PRECEDNT;00011783;1}
1
In five paragraphs, the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (5 members) decided that the
ERA did not substantially impair the RCMP Members rights to pursue collective workplace
goals. In doing so, they noted that first, section 2(d) of the Charter mandated a meaningful
labour relations process but did not guarantee an outcome.
Second, they noted that the ERA did not radically differ from agreements concluded with other
bargaining agents outside of the core public administration and was consistent with the results of
actual bargaining processes. This factor is difficult to understand given that the Court was clear
that it was not the results that matter, but the process.
Third, the Court noted that the ERA did not prevent the consultation process going forward and
put emphasis on the exception contained for the “transformational initiatives” and emphasized
that RCMP members were able to achieve significant results with subsequent proposals brought
forward since the ERA took place. The Court, recognizing some of the contraction in its
comments, noted that actual outcomes are not determinative but were evidence that supports that
the enactment of the ERA had a minor impact.
In summation, the Court noted that the process in place affords the RCMP members with a
process for compensation related issues and did not substantially impair the collective pursuit of
workplace goals of RCMP members. Based on that, the Court did not need to address the second
question.
Justice Rothstein wrote a decision concurring in result, differing on the reasons for dismissing
the appeal.
Justice Abella wrote a decision dissenting and would have found that the absence for the RCMP
to make meaningful representations about the extent and the impact of rollbacks violated section
2(d) of the Charter and could not be justified under section 1.
{PRECEDNT;00011783;1}
2