Ontario Agriculture

The network for agriculture in Ontario, Canada

Supreme Court of Canada Decision on Ontario v. Fraser - Ban on Farm Unions Constitutional

The Supreme Court ruling handed down this morning in the case of Fraser v. Ontario is a great victory for the Attorney General and the farming community.

LICC through its partnership with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture is delighted with the ruling.  The ruling endorses that the Agricultural Employees Protection Act is constitutional.  The Supreme Court totally rejected the Ontario Appeals Court ruling which was a concern to us.  The Agricultural Employees Protection Act is the vehicle for workers collective interest.  The ruling protects workers rights.  Farm Employers are committed to working within the Agricultural Employees Protection Act

Here is a Bulletin and Backgrounder from LICC legal counsel Heenan Blaikie

April 29, 2011

Ontario v. Fraser – Supreme Court of Canada Allows the Appeal

This morning, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Ontario (Attorney General) v. Fraser (“Fraser”) concerning the extent of the constitutional protection of collective bargaining for Ontario agricultural workers under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”).

The Supreme Court determined that the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Fraser v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2008 ONCA 760 should be overturned on the basis that the Court of Appeal seriously overstated the scope of collective bargaining rights under section 2(d). As a result, the appeal brought by the Attorney General of Ontario, in which the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and numerous other organizations intervened, has been allowed and the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, 2002 (“AEPA”) has been found to satisfy constitutional requirements.

Fraser is clearly one of the most significant labour and constitutional decisions in Canadian history.

Backgrounder: The Ontario Court of Appeal’s Decision in Fraser v. Ontario

In its 2008 decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal determined that the exclusion of agricultural workers from Ontario’s Labour Relations Act (“LRA”) and their inclusion in a separate statutory regime, the AEPA, was unconstitutional because it failed to provide adequate statutory protections to allow these workers to engage in collective bargaining. The Court of Appeal found that while the AEPA allowed workers to form or join employee associations (including unions) and to make representations to their employers regarding their employment, unlike the LRA, it did not compel employers to respond to and bargain with employees, did not regulate labour disputes, and did not limit representation rights to a single association or union per group of employees.

The Ontario Court of Appeal identified four protections that the Legislature was required to enact to enable agricultural workers to exercise their right to bargain collectively:

  • A duty to bargain in good faith;
  • A requirement that employee representatives be selected based on the principles of majoritarianism and exclusivity;
  • A mechanism for resolving labour disputes (i.e., strikes and lockouts);
  • A mechanism for resolving disputes regarding the interpretation and administration of collective agreements.

While the Court of Appeal was not entirely clear in this regard, it appeared to suggest that the constitutional right of collective bargaining in section 2(d) of the Charter generally requires statutory protection of the above-noted features.

At the time the Court of Appeal’s decision was released, many observers commented that it may be in conflict with the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2007 finding in the B.C. Health Services case that the constitutional protection for collective bargaining does not guarantee a particular model of labour relations.

The Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal in Fraser v. Ontario in December 2009 and the matter has been under reserve since that time.

The Labour & Employment in the News E-News Bulletin is published by Heenan Blaikie LLP. The articles and comments contained herewith provide general information only. They should not be regarded or relied upon as legal advice or opinions. Heenan Blaikie LLP would be pleased to provide more information on matters of interest to our readers. © 2011, Heenan Blaikie LLP.

The ruling is over 200 pages and can be found at http://scc.lexum.org/en/2011/2011scc20/2011scc20.pdf

If you have questions on any of this material please contact,

 

Ken Linington P.Ag.

Labour Issues Coordinating Committee/Flowers Canada (Ontario)

45 Speedvale Avenue East, Unit 7

Guelph, Ontario

N1H 1J2

519 836-5495 or 1 800 698-0113 ext. 227

519 836-7529 fax

Ken@fco.on.ca

 Lori Moser

OPIC/OSHAB Managing Director

Phone:519-684-6805

Cell:519-577-OPIC

lori.moser@rogers.com

www.opic.on.ca

Views: 315

Reply to This

Agriculture Headlines from Farms.com Canada East News - click on title for full story

2025-2026 Year in Review Showcases Impacts of Beef Producer Investments

What have your investments in the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off accomplished for the industry lately? The Beef Cattle Research Council’s 2025–2026 Year in Review highlights how producer investments and input are advancing research, addressing industry priorities and delivering practical value back to Canada’s beef producers. “The BCRC continues to enhance coordination across the broader beef system, bringing researchers and industry groups together so we can make the best use of limited resources and move solutions and benefits to producers more quickly,” said BCRC Executive Director Tracy Herbert. “The BCRC’s collaborative approach is essential as we address complex challenges and position the Canadian beef industry for long-term success.”   The 2025-2026 BCRC Year in Review provides a broad funding overview by program area and source. In the past fiscal year, the BCRC received on average $0.66 (unaudited) of every $2.50 of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off collected by provincial

Pre-harvest products and how to use them

Canola growers have three primary reasons for a pre-harvest spray application: Weed control ???????Desiccation Manage uneven crop ??????????????Use scenarios for pre-harvest spray Weed control Pre-harvest can be a good time to manage weeds, especially when straight combining. The act of swathing and curing can also provide weed control. Effective control is challenging on big weeds: apply product at the recommended rate with high water volumes to penetrate the crop canopy and achieve thorough coverage. Note: Set reasonable expectations on preventing seed set. Charles Geddes, weed management scientist with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in Lethbridge, Alberta, says: “There is no easy way to tell if weeds will have mature seed, but in my experience, it happens earlier than one might think. I suggest that the latest a weed should be left is until it is flowering. Once it starts to flower, then some of the seed can mature on the plant after it is terminated. From a weed management p

Pre-harvest glyphosate staging tips help produce market-ready crops

As harvest approaches, Keep it Clean is reminding Canadian canola, cereal and pulse growers to follow proper staging practices for pre-harvest glyphosate application to help protect crop marketability and preserve access to domestic and export markets. Applying pre-harvest glyphosate for weed control too early can result in unacceptable product residues in harvested grain. Keep it Clean’s Pre-Harvest Glyphosate Staging Guide provides visual examples to help growers identify when grain moisture content in canola, cereals and pulses is less than 30 per cent – the only stage at which pre-harvest glyphosate may be applied. Where allowed, glyphosate is registered for pre-harvest weed control and is not to be used as a desiccant. Pre-harvest glyphosate may only be applied when grain moisture content is less than 30 per cent in the least mature part of the field, including any areas of regrowth that may produce seed. “Glyphosate is an important tool in the grower’s toolbox for crop manage

Safeguarding Cereals Against Allergens

Maintaining a reputation for clean, safe grain is essential for both domestic and international markets. Shipments contaminated with allergenic grains can lead to costly rejections, recalls and long-term damage to market confidence. Unintentional mingling of allergenic grains with cereals is a concern for export markets and must be actively managed.  Certain crop types can be allergen sources in our export markets. When these crops are unintentionally mixed with cereals, they can pose serious food safety and market access risks.   Common allergen sources in grain exports include:  Mustard   Soy   Buckwheat   Buckwheat is considered highly allergenic, and even very small amounts mixed into wheat, barley or oats can cause severe reactions in some markets. Because of these risks, many export markets apply strict limits for allergenic material in cereal shipments.  How allergens can contaminate grain  Allergen contamination most often occurs through shared equipment and handling system

Canada Launches First Private Forest Owner Survey in Over 20 Years, Farmers Invited to Participate

Canadian farmers who own woodlots or private forests are being asked to participate in the first national survey of private forest owners in more than 20 years.

© 2026   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service