Mainville, Rancourt, Gagné

Appeals and cross-appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court allowing in part applications for a declaration of unconstitutionality and nullity of the Act to foster the financial health and sustainability of municipal defined benefit pension plans (CQLR, c. S-2.1.1). Dismissed.

The plaintiff associations and unions argued before the trial judge that the Act, by its impact on their pension plans and their right to negotiate their working conditions, infringed their fundamental freedom of association. The judge granted the applications only as they related to retired employees.

The trial judge committed a reviewable error in finding that the Act did not substantially affect the rights of active employees. If full account is taken of the context of collective bargaining in the municipal sector, and of the actual effects of the measures in the Act on both existing collective agreements and future collective bargaining, it must be concluded that the measures in the Act substantially impair the freedom of municipal employees to engage in a meaningful process of collective bargaining on several crucial aspects of one of their key terms of employment, namely pensions. However, this impairment meets the applicable test, making it justifiable in a free and democratic society. At the end of the analysis, the Act preserves and strengthens the municipal sector's defined benefit pension plan by imposing structural measures to promote its financial health and sustainability, for the benefit of both active members and taxpayers, who thus ensure that the costs of these plans remain sustainable over the long term.

The same cannot be said for retired members. It was not established that the measures affecting them, including the removal of automatic indexation, are justified, carefully tailored, or a last resort, or that the Act safeguards a process of negotiation and arbitration for them. There is therefore no reason to interfere with the judge’s findings in this regard.

Rancourt J.A., concurring, finds that the Act does not substantially interfere with the freedom of association of active members. Its measures address serious concerns about the financial health of defined benefit pension plans. They do not absolutely prohibit the negotiation of provisions in collective agreements without the possibility of compensation. They do not prevent active members from participating in setting their collective workplace-related goals. They are not intended to control the activities of the appellant associations and unions. Therefore, there is no reason to overturn the trial judgment on this aspect.

Text of the decision: Alliance des professionnels et des professionnelles de la ville de Québec et al. c. Procureur général du Québec et 13 autres dossiers reliés (dossier de la « Loi 15 »)