INTERVENOR Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Citation: Strickland v. Ermel Date: 1993-09-29 Docket: 1223 Between: Tom Strickland on behalf of himself and all members of the Association of Professional Engineers of Saskatchewan employed by the Saskatchewan Institute of Applied Science and Technology and Ralph Ermel, on behalf of himself and all members of the S.G.E.U. Siast Academic bargaining unit, Saskatchewan Institute of Applied Science and Technology and Attorney General for Saskatchewan Before: Wakeling, Gerwing and Sherstobitoff JJ.A. Appearances: L.F. Seiferling, Q.C., for Strickland D.S. Bailey, for S.I.A.S.T. N.R. McLeod, for S.G.E.U. J.T. Irvine, for Attorney General of Saskatchewan [1] SHERSTOBITOFF J.A.:– The appeal [from 1992 CanLII 7943 (SK QB), [1992] 6 W.W.R. 116] must be dismissed. [2] Firstly, we are in general agreement with the reasoning of Wright J. Although his reasons are clear, there is some confusion as to the answers he gave to the questions posed in his judgment. In an addendum, he said that the answer to question should be no. It seems clear that he was referring to question 5, rather than question 4. The result is the same, in any event. [3] Secondly, the case was put to the court below prematurely, with the result that it was put on what was essentially hypothetical basis, and Charter decisions should not be made without sufficient factual base. There was no evidence put before the court that the appellants or any of them had yet suffered any adverse consequences as result of the impugned legislation, although proceedings were pending before the Labour Relations Board which might result in adverse consequences. More particularly, there was no evidence that anyone had lost their job or had been in any way penalized for refusing to either pay union dues or to join the union, nor was there any evidence as to why anyone objected to being member of the bargaining unit in question or the union in question so as to permit any reasoned decision as to the alleged right not to associate. [4] The respondents shall have their costs of the appeal under double col. V, except the Attorney General who did not ask for costs. Appeal dismissed.
Members of the Association of Professional Engineers who were also SIAST employees challenged the statutory provisions and collective bargaining agreement whereby they were compelled to become members of the SGEU. In Queen's Bench it was held that the statutory provisions which created two bargaining units for institute employees and required certain employees to be union members did not violate s.2(d) of the Charter. Appeal dismissed