Sentences with phrase «prohibition against strikes»

Labour Law: Essential Services; Right to Strike; Freedom of Association Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan, 2015 SCC 4 (35423) The prohibition against strikes in the Public Service Essential Services Act substantially interferes with a meaningful process of collective bargaining and therefore violates s. 2 (d) of the Charter; infringement is not justified under s. 1; declaration of invalidity suspended one year; appeal with respect to Trade Union Amendment Act 2008 dismissed.

The prohibition against strikes in the Public Service Essential Services Act substantially interferes with a meaningful process of collective bargaining and therefore violates s. 2 (d) of the Charter; the infringement is not justified under s. 1; the declaration of invalidity suspended for one year; and the appeal with respect to The Trade Union Amendment Act, 2008 is dismissed.

The PSESA included similar prohibitions against striking for those employees working for «essential services,» as defined in the legislation.

Not exact matches

To the contrary, if tested by the Supreme Court, a direct criminal prohibition against adultery would likely be struck down as unconstitutional, whereas the Court would have no problem in recognizing adultery as a factor towards dissolving a union that was based on fidelity.

Lavin's prohibition against the MPS - Accord business relationship struck at least one other charter executive as curious.

Two lower courts in Ontario struck down two provisions of the Criminal Code prohibiting the operation of a common bawdy house and a prohibition against living on the avails of prostitution on the basis that the provisions violated s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which provides that the state can not deny a person's right to life, liberty or security of the person except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Defendants argue that this court should strike the two sentencing allegations for three reasons: 1) The allegations are prejudicial surplusage; 2) The government does not have statutory authority to include sentencing allegations in an indictment; and 3) Presenting sentencing allegations to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt to increase defendants» sentences violates the constitutional principles of separation of powers and the prohibition against the legislative branch delegating its powers to the executive branch.

The regulations were enacted in response to the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Parker (2000), 49 O.R. (3d) 481 (C.A.), in which the criminal prohibitions against possessing and cultivating marihuana were struck down (with the declaration of invalidity suspended for a period of twelve months) after they were found to contravene s. 7 of the Charter in the case of persons who required marihuana for medically approved uses.