The chapters in this document are displayed in reversed order, with the last chapter appearing first.
This change ensures all chapters are included in the test bank. Chap 1 to 39 Included
1
The Law of Work, 3e
Chapter
Test Bank 39: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Work
Chapter 39:
Multiple Instructor Version
Choice
1. What was the initial reception to the potential impact the Charter would have on the law of work?
(p. 698)
a. Commentators generally believed that it would fundamentally transform work for the
benefit of all workers
b. Commentators generally believed that it would make things worse for workers as employers
would use it to their benefit to erode rights already won
c. Commentators generally believed that the Charter would make little difference in the lives
of workers because unions and employers would mostly ignore it as it applied only to
government action
d. Commentators were generally mixed, with one camp believing that it would be
transformative and another believing that it would make little difference for workers or
could even make things worse for them
2. Why have courts decided that the Charter applies to colleges but not to universities? (p. 699)
a. The courts have decided that colleges do not charge as high tuition as universities and are
thus in receipt of much more public funding than universities
b. The courts have decided that governments have far less direct control over the day-to-day
decision-making of universities than colleges
c. The courts have decided that the Charter does not apply to either colleges or universities
because no government
3. What was the significance of the case known as Pepsi-Cola? (pp. 702-03)
a. The Supreme Court of Canada created a new rule that distinguished between primary and
secondary picketing, ruling that the latter was not constitutionally protected and thus could
be limited in any way legislatures desired
b. The Supreme Court of Canada expanded the common law right to leaflet and picket at
secondary locations consistent with ‘Charter values’
c. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the earlier jurisprudence that maintained that any
picketing that involved more than simply handing out informational material was not
protected by freedom of expression
d. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the previous common law distinction between
primary and secondary picketing maintaining that the latter was illegal
Copyright © 2024
,The Law of Work, 3e 2
Test Bank
Chapter 39: Instructor Version
4. What was the courts' concern about the "signalling effect" of picketing in UFCW v Kmart? (pp. 706-
07)
a. That people would not make “rational” decisions not to cross but would feel coerced not
to even though no one had actually threatened them
b. That the picket line would physically impede people’s legitimate freedom of movement like
a red traffic signal
c. That the picket line would signal to other unions to engage in secondary picketing
d. That the picket line would signal to potential customers that the employer was a bad one
and that those customers once lost would never return
5. What was the Court's response to the union that had posted a video of workers crossing the picket
line, in Alberta (Information and Privacy Commission) v United Food and Commercial Workers, Local
401? (pp. 707-08)
a. That such posting amounted to a protected expressive activity and that the privacy
interests at stake were limited
b. That such posting did not violate the privacy laws because the specific individuals could not
be identified by the video
c. That such posting was an invasion of privacy and violated privacy laws that require
individuals’ prior consent
d. Since the employer had posted a video of the picketers it could not now claim that the union
had violated the law
6. Which of the following places have courts determined are not suitable for picketing? (p. 708)
a. Courthouses
b. Churches
c. Funeral homes
d. Police stations
7. In what is known as the (1st) Labour Trilogy why did the Supreme Court of Canada rule that workers
did not have a right to strike? (pp. 709-10)
a. Because at the time unions were asking for an unlimited right to strike not subject to any
legislative limitations and the courts felt this could not be accommodated within our
constitutional regime
b. Because striking would recalibrate the delicate balance of power between employers and
unions too far in favour of unions
c. Because striking was thought to be a collective right and the Charter protected only
individual rights
d. Because the Court felt that the right to strike would conflict with the employer’s property
right and on balance that the former right had to give way to the latter
Copyright © 2024
,The Law of Work, 3e 3
Test Bank
Chapter 39: Instructor Version
8. Which of the following best characterizes today’s general view of (then) Chief Justice Dickson’s
dissent in the Labour Trilogy? (p. 710)
a. It significantly misunderstood both the nature of associational freedom and how it is
practiced by labour associations
b. It was highly influential in convincing the Supreme Court of Canada to overrule the 1st
Labour Trilogy
c. While it was a passionate defence of labour associations it was conceptually unworkable
and thus did not gain traction in later jurisprudence
9. At issue in Fraser was the constitutionality of the Agricultural Employees Protection Act (AEPA).
What did the Court say about the AEPA? (p. 711)
a. That it did not violate the Charter even though it offered less protection for agricultural
workers than is found within other labour relations statutes
b. That it violated section 2(d) (freedom of association) of the Charter because it treated
agricultural employees less favourably than labour relations statutes treated other unions
c. That it violated section 15 (equality) of the Charter because it treated agricultural employees
less favourably than labour relations statutes treated other unions
d. That it was not unconstitutional because the exclusion of agricultural workers from the
collective bargaining regime is saved under section 1 of the Charter
10. Which three cases are said to make up the 2nd Labour Trilogy? (pp. 711-12)
a. Dunmore, Health Services and Fraser
b. Health Services, Fraser and AEPA
c. Health Services, Fraser and SFL v. Saskatchewan
d. Mounted Police Association of Ontario, SFL v. Saskatchewan and Meredith
Short Answer
1. For what two reasons did the Supreme Court of Canada reject Lavigne’s claim of a violation of
freedom of association? (p. 716)
Lavigne was required, as is usual, to pay dues to his union. Part of those dues were then used to
support various “political” causes with which Lavigne disagreed. Lavigne claimed that forced
union dues and the ability for unions to use his dues in this manner violated his freedom of
association. The Court ruled that it did not, but did so for different reasons. 4 of the 7-member
panel agreed that his freedom of association had been violated but that this was saved by a
section 1 argument because unions serve an important role in society by contributing to public
debate. The other 3 did not even agree that his freedom of association had been violated because
they ruled that the Charter did not include a freedom not to associate.
Copyright © 2024
, The Law of Work, 3e 4
Test Bank
Chapter 39: Instructor Version
2. Briefly discuss the case known as Advanced Cutting and Coring and its outcome. (p. 716)
In 2001, this case challenged Quebec legislation that required construction workers to join one of
five unions. Did this “compulsory unionism” violate a freedom not to associate? The judges
decided that it did not, but as in Lavigne, there was profound disagreement about why. Eight of
the nine Supreme Court judges ruled that section 2(d) of the Charter includes a "right not to
associate", that is, a right against the compelled association. Five of the nine judges ruled that this
right was violated in this case. However, by a score of five to four, the Supreme Court ruled
ultimately that the violation was saved by section 1, on the basis that there were important
characteristics of the Quebec construction industry that justified the infringement.
Essay Questions
1. The Charter is said to protect both “rights” and “freedoms”. Some have argued that there is an
important conceptual difference between the two that the Court’s 2(d) jurisprudence, particularly in
Dunmore, risks negating. Do you think there is an important difference between the two and should
we pay attention to the language of the Charter when it says that a certain section protects one or
the other?
2. Is there a freedom not to associate or does freedom of association simply protect a freedom to
associate as some on the bench said during a case known as Lavigne?
Copyright © 2024
This change ensures all chapters are included in the test bank. Chap 1 to 39 Included
1
The Law of Work, 3e
Chapter
Test Bank 39: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Work
Chapter 39:
Multiple Instructor Version
Choice
1. What was the initial reception to the potential impact the Charter would have on the law of work?
(p. 698)
a. Commentators generally believed that it would fundamentally transform work for the
benefit of all workers
b. Commentators generally believed that it would make things worse for workers as employers
would use it to their benefit to erode rights already won
c. Commentators generally believed that the Charter would make little difference in the lives
of workers because unions and employers would mostly ignore it as it applied only to
government action
d. Commentators were generally mixed, with one camp believing that it would be
transformative and another believing that it would make little difference for workers or
could even make things worse for them
2. Why have courts decided that the Charter applies to colleges but not to universities? (p. 699)
a. The courts have decided that colleges do not charge as high tuition as universities and are
thus in receipt of much more public funding than universities
b. The courts have decided that governments have far less direct control over the day-to-day
decision-making of universities than colleges
c. The courts have decided that the Charter does not apply to either colleges or universities
because no government
3. What was the significance of the case known as Pepsi-Cola? (pp. 702-03)
a. The Supreme Court of Canada created a new rule that distinguished between primary and
secondary picketing, ruling that the latter was not constitutionally protected and thus could
be limited in any way legislatures desired
b. The Supreme Court of Canada expanded the common law right to leaflet and picket at
secondary locations consistent with ‘Charter values’
c. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the earlier jurisprudence that maintained that any
picketing that involved more than simply handing out informational material was not
protected by freedom of expression
d. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the previous common law distinction between
primary and secondary picketing maintaining that the latter was illegal
Copyright © 2024
,The Law of Work, 3e 2
Test Bank
Chapter 39: Instructor Version
4. What was the courts' concern about the "signalling effect" of picketing in UFCW v Kmart? (pp. 706-
07)
a. That people would not make “rational” decisions not to cross but would feel coerced not
to even though no one had actually threatened them
b. That the picket line would physically impede people’s legitimate freedom of movement like
a red traffic signal
c. That the picket line would signal to other unions to engage in secondary picketing
d. That the picket line would signal to potential customers that the employer was a bad one
and that those customers once lost would never return
5. What was the Court's response to the union that had posted a video of workers crossing the picket
line, in Alberta (Information and Privacy Commission) v United Food and Commercial Workers, Local
401? (pp. 707-08)
a. That such posting amounted to a protected expressive activity and that the privacy
interests at stake were limited
b. That such posting did not violate the privacy laws because the specific individuals could not
be identified by the video
c. That such posting was an invasion of privacy and violated privacy laws that require
individuals’ prior consent
d. Since the employer had posted a video of the picketers it could not now claim that the union
had violated the law
6. Which of the following places have courts determined are not suitable for picketing? (p. 708)
a. Courthouses
b. Churches
c. Funeral homes
d. Police stations
7. In what is known as the (1st) Labour Trilogy why did the Supreme Court of Canada rule that workers
did not have a right to strike? (pp. 709-10)
a. Because at the time unions were asking for an unlimited right to strike not subject to any
legislative limitations and the courts felt this could not be accommodated within our
constitutional regime
b. Because striking would recalibrate the delicate balance of power between employers and
unions too far in favour of unions
c. Because striking was thought to be a collective right and the Charter protected only
individual rights
d. Because the Court felt that the right to strike would conflict with the employer’s property
right and on balance that the former right had to give way to the latter
Copyright © 2024
,The Law of Work, 3e 3
Test Bank
Chapter 39: Instructor Version
8. Which of the following best characterizes today’s general view of (then) Chief Justice Dickson’s
dissent in the Labour Trilogy? (p. 710)
a. It significantly misunderstood both the nature of associational freedom and how it is
practiced by labour associations
b. It was highly influential in convincing the Supreme Court of Canada to overrule the 1st
Labour Trilogy
c. While it was a passionate defence of labour associations it was conceptually unworkable
and thus did not gain traction in later jurisprudence
9. At issue in Fraser was the constitutionality of the Agricultural Employees Protection Act (AEPA).
What did the Court say about the AEPA? (p. 711)
a. That it did not violate the Charter even though it offered less protection for agricultural
workers than is found within other labour relations statutes
b. That it violated section 2(d) (freedom of association) of the Charter because it treated
agricultural employees less favourably than labour relations statutes treated other unions
c. That it violated section 15 (equality) of the Charter because it treated agricultural employees
less favourably than labour relations statutes treated other unions
d. That it was not unconstitutional because the exclusion of agricultural workers from the
collective bargaining regime is saved under section 1 of the Charter
10. Which three cases are said to make up the 2nd Labour Trilogy? (pp. 711-12)
a. Dunmore, Health Services and Fraser
b. Health Services, Fraser and AEPA
c. Health Services, Fraser and SFL v. Saskatchewan
d. Mounted Police Association of Ontario, SFL v. Saskatchewan and Meredith
Short Answer
1. For what two reasons did the Supreme Court of Canada reject Lavigne’s claim of a violation of
freedom of association? (p. 716)
Lavigne was required, as is usual, to pay dues to his union. Part of those dues were then used to
support various “political” causes with which Lavigne disagreed. Lavigne claimed that forced
union dues and the ability for unions to use his dues in this manner violated his freedom of
association. The Court ruled that it did not, but did so for different reasons. 4 of the 7-member
panel agreed that his freedom of association had been violated but that this was saved by a
section 1 argument because unions serve an important role in society by contributing to public
debate. The other 3 did not even agree that his freedom of association had been violated because
they ruled that the Charter did not include a freedom not to associate.
Copyright © 2024
, The Law of Work, 3e 4
Test Bank
Chapter 39: Instructor Version
2. Briefly discuss the case known as Advanced Cutting and Coring and its outcome. (p. 716)
In 2001, this case challenged Quebec legislation that required construction workers to join one of
five unions. Did this “compulsory unionism” violate a freedom not to associate? The judges
decided that it did not, but as in Lavigne, there was profound disagreement about why. Eight of
the nine Supreme Court judges ruled that section 2(d) of the Charter includes a "right not to
associate", that is, a right against the compelled association. Five of the nine judges ruled that this
right was violated in this case. However, by a score of five to four, the Supreme Court ruled
ultimately that the violation was saved by section 1, on the basis that there were important
characteristics of the Quebec construction industry that justified the infringement.
Essay Questions
1. The Charter is said to protect both “rights” and “freedoms”. Some have argued that there is an
important conceptual difference between the two that the Court’s 2(d) jurisprudence, particularly in
Dunmore, risks negating. Do you think there is an important difference between the two and should
we pay attention to the language of the Charter when it says that a certain section protects one or
the other?
2. Is there a freedom not to associate or does freedom of association simply protect a freedom to
associate as some on the bench said during a case known as Lavigne?
Copyright © 2024
