Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Charter - Freedom of association - Privacy law - Labour relations - Administrative law - Judicial review - Standard of review - What is the appropriate standard of review? - Whether the provision of home contact information to the unions is a consistent use under para. 8(2)(a) of the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P 21 Do sections 185 and 186(1)(a) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, violate s. 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms insofar as they have the effect of requiring an employer to provide a bargaining agent with the home address and home phone number of its employees? - If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law, which can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

The appellant is an employee of the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”), in a job classification for which the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (the “Union”) is the bargaining agent. Ms. Bernard has declined to join the Union, and she seeks to prevent CRA from disclosing her home contact information to the Union. She brought an application for judicial review of a consent order by the Public Service Labour Relations Board (the “Board”) which authorized the disclosure of her home contact information to the Union subject to certain safeguards. The Federal Court of Appeal remitted the matter for a decision of the Board on what information the employer must provide to enable the Union to discharge its obligations under the Public Service Labour Relations Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, s. 2, without breaching the employees’ rights under the Privacy Act: Bernard v. Canada, 2010 FCA 40. The Board found the appellate court’s instructions were limited to assessing the privacy rights of employees and refused to consider the appellant’s Charter argument that disclosure of the information violated her freedom not to associate. It went on to determine that disclosure of the information was authorized by para. 8(2)(a) of the Privacy Act, because the Union’s intended use of it was consistent with the purpose for which it was obtained by the CRA. Its original order was amended to add further safeguards. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s application for judicial review on the basis that the Board’s decision was reasonable.