Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Assn. v. Douglas College

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Assn. v. Douglas College

Hearing: May 18, 19, 1989
Judgment: December 6, 1990


Full case name:	Douglas College v. Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Association
Citations:	[1990] 3 S.C.R. 570
History:	on appeal from BC Court of Appeal
Ruling:	Faculty appeal dismissed

Court membership

Chief Justice: Brian Dickson
Puisne Justices: Antonio Lamer, Bertha Wilson, Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin

Reasons given

Majority by: La Forest J.
Joined by: Dickson C.J. and Gonthier JJ.
Concurrence by: Wilson J.
Joined by: L'Heureux‑Dubé J.
Concurrence by: Sopinka J.
Concurrence by: Cory J.

Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Assn. v. Douglas College, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision a tribunal's jurisdiction to grant remedies.

1 Background
2 Opinion of the Court
3 See also
4 External links

[edit] Background

Douglas College was a post-secondary school operated by the province of British Columbia as a Crown corporation under the College and Institute Act. The school's collective agreement included a provision for mandatory retirement at age 65. Two professors challenged this prvision to the labour arbitration tribunal as a violation of their equality right guarantee under section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The professors argued that the college constituted a public institution and therefore was subject to the Charter, and that the collective agreement constituted "law" within meaning of the Charter.

The labour arbitrator agreed and found that the law violated section 15(1) of the Charter. The decision was appealed to Court of Appeal on the grounds that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the constitutional challenge. The appellate court found that the tribunal had jurisdiction.

The issues before the Supreme Court were:

whether the Charter applied to the collective agreement;
whether the retirement provision was "law" as used in s. 15(1) of the Charter;
whether the arbitration board appointed to resolve a grievance disputing the constitutionality of that provision was a "court of competent jurisdiction" under s. 24(1) of the Charter;
whether the arbitration board had jurisdiction to hear and determine such a grievance.

[edit] Opinion of the Court

Justice La Forest, writing for the majority, dismissed the College's appeal.

The majority held that although a tribunal has the power to treat any invalid law that it may be asked to apply as having no force or effect, it may not necessarily be able to apply the Charter or grant a remedy under section 24(1) of the Charter. A tribunal only has power to the extent that it has been conferred to it by law.