BCGEU v. British Columbia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BCGEU v. British Columbia (Attorney General)

Hearing: March 3, 1988
Judgment: October 20, 1988


Full case name:	'
Docket No.:	19518

Court membership

Chief Justice: Brian Dickson
Puisne Justices: Jean Beetz, Willard Estey, William McIntyre, Antonio Lamer, Bertha Wilson, Gerald Le Dain, Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé

Reasons given

Majority by: Dickson C.J. (paras. 1-73)
Concurrence by: McIntyre J. (paras. 74-78)
Estey J. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

BCGEU v. British Columbia, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the right to picket as a freedom of expression under section 2(b) of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[edit] Background

In November of 1983, the British Columbia Government Employees Union (BCGEU), of which the employees of the superior courts were members, went on strike. The staff of the British Columbia Supreme Court picketed outside of the court house and only let in a minimum number of people needed for urgent cases. When Chief Justice Allan McEachern arrived in the morning to see the staff picketing he went to his office and issued an order on his own motion to get the staff back to work.

The issues before the Supreme Court of Canada were:

whether the judge could constitutionally enjoin picketing of court-houses by a union representing court employees engaged in a lawful strike;
whether an enactment by a provincial legislature or by Parliament could validly deprive a judge of a Supreme Court of his inherent authority to protect the functions and processes of his and other courts without an amendment to the Constitution of Canada;
whether the order restraining picketing and other activities within the precincts of all court-houses in British Columbia infringed or denied the rights and freedoms guaranteed by ss. 2(b), (c), 7, 11(a), (c) and (d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and if so, whether the order was justified by s. 1 of the Charter.

The majority held that the judge could enjoin the picketers and that his order violated the freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter, but was saved under section 1.