COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia, 2015 BCCA 184 Date: 20150430 Docket: CA41560 Between: The British Columbia Teachers’ Federation, on behalf of all Members of the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation Respondent (Plaintiff) And 2015 BCCA 184 (CanLII) Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia Appellant (Defendant) And The Coalition of British Columbia Businesses Intervenor Before: The Honourable Chief Justice Bauman The Honourable Mr. Justice Donald The Honourable Madam Justice Newbury The Honourable Madam Justice Saunders The Honourable Mr. Justice Harris On appeal from: An order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, dated January 27, 2014 (British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia, 2014 BCSC 121, Vancouver Docket No. S124584) Counsel for the Appellant: K. Horsman, Q.C. E. Ross K. Evans Counsel for the Respondent: J. Rogers, Q.C. S. Rogers A. Merritt D. MacDonald Counsel for the Intervenor: L. Wihak British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia Page 2 Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, British Columbia October 14, 15, 16, 2014 Written Submissions Received: January 26, February 6, 11, 2015 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, British Columbia April 30, 2015 Written Reasons by: The Honourable Chief Justice Bauman and The Honourable Mr. Justice Harris Concurred in by: The Honourable Madam Justice Newbury The Honourable Madam Justice Saunders 2015 BCCA 184 (CanLII) Dissenting Reasons by: The Honourable Mr. Justice Donald (page 81, para. 275) British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia Page 3 Table of Contents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE BAUMAN AND MR. JUSTICE HARRIS: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 5 OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 7 CONSULTATIONS LEADING TO BILL 22 ..................................................................... 17 1. Are pre-legislative consultations relevant at the infringement stage of the constitutional analysis in s. 2(d) cases? .......................................................... 17 (a) Trial judge’s reasoning .................................................................................... 17 (b) Errors.................................................................................................................. 19 2015 BCCA 184 (CanLII) (c) Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 27 2. Must pre-legislative consultations be with government acting as employer? ........................................................................................................................ 28 (a) History of collective bargaining by teachers in British Columbia .............. 28 (b) Trial judge’s reasoning .................................................................................... 34 (c) Errors.................................................................................................................. 35 (d) Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 40 3. Did the Province consult in good faith in this case? ................................... 40 (a) Meaning of good faith in s. 2(d) context ....................................................... 41 (b) Consultations and bargaining before Bill 22 ................................................ 46 (c) Legal errors ....................................................................................................... 52 (d) Factual errors .................................................................................................... 56 (e) Remaining factors ............................................................................................ 65 BARGAINING IMPASSE AND DEADLINE FROM BILL 28 DECISION ................... 67 DELETED TERMS AND COOLING OFF PERIOD........................................................ 68 1. Deletions................................................................................................................... 68 2. Cooling off period .................................................................................................. 69 ASSOCIATED REGULATIONS ........................................................................................ 72 1. Learning Improvement Fund............................................................................... 73 2. Class Size and Compensation Regulation ...................................................... 73 3. Discussion ............................................................................................................... 73 CONCLUSION ON THE BILL 22 ISSUES ...................................................................... 74 BILL 28 ISSUES .................................................................................................................. 78 FINAL CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 80 British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia Page 4 DISSENTING REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DONALD: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 81 THE HEALTH SERVICES TEST AND PRE-LEGISLATIVE CONSULTATION ....... 83 The Trial Judge’s Findings on Substantial Interference ..................................... 90 THE DISPUTE BETWEEN BCTF AND THE PROVINCE ............................................ 93 THE IMPORTANCE OF DEFERENCE TO THE TRIAL JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT ...................................................................................................................................... 97 THE TEST FOR GOOD FAITH WAS CORRECTLY LAID OUT BY THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA IN HEALTH SERVICES AND FRASER .................................. 98 THE TRIAL JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF BAD FAITH ..................................................... 104 2015 BCCA 184 (CanLII) The Province’s Position Was Based on Fallacy .................................................. 105 The Province Closed Its Mind to Alternatives ...................................................... 107 The Trial Judge’s Consideration of the Evidence ............................................... 108 Associated Regulations ............................................................................................. 110 Conclusion on Good Faith and the Province’s s. 2(d) Breach ........................ 111 SECTION 1 ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 113 Pressing and Substantial Objective and Rational Connection ....................... 113 Minimal Impairment ..................................................................................................... 114 REMEDY.............................................................................................................................. 117 CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................... 119 British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia Page 5 Summary: The trial judge held that certain sections of the Education Improvement Act, S.B.C. 2012, c. 3, unjustifiably infringed teachers’ freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter. This holding was based on two main conclusions: the Province’s consultations with the BCTF before the legislation was enacted were irrelevant to its constitutionality, and the Province had in any event failed to consult in good faith. The Province appeals. Held: Appeal allowed (Donald J.A. dissenting). Majority (per Bauman C.J.B.C., Newbury, Saunders and Harris JJ.A.): The Province’s consultations are relevant to the constitutionality of the legislation. The trial judge’s finding that the Province had failed to consult in good faith was based on errors of law and palpable and overriding errors of fact. Between the consultations and the collective bargaining leading up to the legislation, teachers were afforded a meaningful process in which to advance their collective aspirations. The legislation 2015 BCCA 184 (CanLII) did not infringe s. 2(d) of the Charter. Dissent (per Donald J.A.): The majority’s conclusion that the consultations are relevant is agreed with. However, the trial judge did not err in law or fact in finding that the Province had failed to consult in good faith. The legislation infringed s. 2(d) and is not demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter. Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Chief Justice Bauman and Mr. Justice Harris: Introduction [1] This appeal addresses the constitutionality of legislation that affects the workload and working conditions of teachers in the public school system in this province. Enacted in 2012, the legislation nullified terms that were part of the teachers’ collective agreement before 2002 and provided that similar terms could not be renegotiated or included in their collective agreement until July 2013. The legislation also provided for the appointment of a mediator whose primary goal was to help the teachers’ union (the BCTF) and school boards negotiate toward a short- term collective agreement that would expire at the end of June 2013. [2] Earlier legislation nullifying terms of the