Law Society of Saskatchewan
Find Legal AssistanceMember ProfileMember ResourcesContact
  • 0
    Cart
  • My Account
  • About Us
      • News
        • Legal News (Legal Sourcery)
        • Podcast
        • ReSource
        • Videos
        • Benchers’ Digest
        • Case Mail
      • Mission and Values
      • Committees
      • Convocation
      • Benchers
      • Annual and Financial Reports
      • Contact Us
  • Initiatives
      • Access to Justice
        • Future of Legal Services Initiative
          • The Limited Licensing Pilot
        • Limited Scope Legal Services – Information for the Public
        • Limited Scope Legal Services – Information for Lawyers
        • Saskatchewan Access to Justice Week
      • Equity, Diversity and Inclusion
        • Demographic Data Collection FAQ
        • Equity Office
      • Legal Information
        • Legal Information Guidelines
        • Saskatchewan Access to Legal Information
      • Truth and Reconciliation
        • Additional Resources
        • Information on Indigenous Class Action Settlements
      • Saskatchewan Justicia Project
  • Regulation
      • Definition of the Practice of Law and Unauthorized Practice of Law
      • Firm Regulation
        • Designated Representative (DR) Hub
      • New Sole Practitioner/Small Firm Practice Program
      • Act, Code and Rules
        • The Legal Profession Act, 1990
        • Code of Professional Conduct and Amendments
        • Law Society Rules, Amendments and Practice Directives
        • Rules Concordance – Read More
      • Hearings, Decisions and Rulings
        • Hearing Committee Adjudicator Roster
        • Pending Discipline Matters
        • Discipline Decisions
        • Conduct Review Database
        • Ethics Rulings Database
        • Pending Admissions and Education Matters
        • Admissions and Education Decisions
        • Disqualification and Reinstatement
      • Lawyers with Practice Conditions/Restrictions
      • Lawyer Trusteeships and Successors
      • Potential Complaint Outcomes
        • Ethics Committee
        • Competency Committee
        • Conduct Investigation Committee
  • Public
      • Finding Legal Assistance
      • Find Legal Assistance Search Guidance
      • Get Legal Information, Resources, and Options for Assistance
      • What to Expect From Your Lawyer
      • Looking For Lost Wills
      • Making a Complaint
        • Complaints Process
      • Common Client Concerns
        • Understanding Lawyers’ Fees
        • Quality of Service
        • Conflict of Interest
        • Confidentiality
        • Withdrawal
        • File Transfers
      • Common Client Concerns
        • Role of an Estate’s Lawyer
        • Role of Opposing Lawyer
        • Breach of Trust Conditions/Undertakings
        • Lawyer’s Conduct in Court
        • Lawyer’s Outside Interests
  • Lawyers and Students
      • Becoming a Lawyer in Saskatchewan
        • Students-at-law
          • Articling in Saskatchewan
        • Transfer Lawyers
        • International Applicants
        • Western Canada Competency Profile
      • Becoming a Principal
      • Career And Volunteer Opportunities
        • Students Seeking Articles
      • Membership Services
      • Mentorship Program
      • Awards, Bursaries, Scholarships
      • Locum Registry
      • Expanded Practice Advisor Program
      • Forms and Fees
        • Law Society Forms
        • Trust Account Forms
      • Western Conveyancing Protocol
        • Protocol for Saskatchewan
      • Practice Resources
        • General Resources
        • Successor Listing
        • King’s Bench Rules
      • Health and Wellness
      • Pro Bono Legal Services
  • Legal Resources
  • CPD
      • CPD Activities
        • CPD Calendar of Activities
        • CPD On Demand (Subscription)
        • Recorded Versions Shop
        • Study Group Resources
      • CPD Policy
        • Reporting CPD Hours
        • Eligible CPD Activities
        • Remedial CPD Plan Information
        • FAQs for Members
        • FAQs for CPD Providers
      • Contact Us
      • Volunteers
      • Presenter Section
  • Shop
Law Society of Saskatchewan Saskatchewan Law Review Articles Parliamentary Privilege to Unjustly Dismiss: A Comment on Chagnon v SFPQ

The information provided on this blog is to, the best of our knowledge, accurate and up-to-date as of the date of posting. However, please be aware that information can change rapidly and without notice. Therefore, we cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information presented after the posting date. It is advised that readers exercise due diligence and independently verify the accuracy of information they find on this blog news feed. Here are links to the most current information available in relation to our Membership, Saskatchewan Case Law, and Saskatchewan Legislation.

Parliamentary Privilege to Unjustly Dismiss: A Comment on Chagnon v SFPQ

September 17, 2019

Shay Brehm, JD Candidate (Saskatchewan)

I. INTRODUCTION

In its recent decision of Chagnon v Syndicat de la fonction publique et parapublique du Québec,1 the Supreme Court of Canada dealt with whether parliamentary privilege protects legislatures from claims of unjust dismissal. The claim arose after the National Assembly of Québec dismissed three security guards for using cameras on the exterior of the Assembly to “peep” on guests in an adjacent hotel.2 Upon dismissal, the employees filed a grievance seeking reinstatement and reimbursement of lost benefits.3 The President of the Assembly challenged the arbitrator’s jurisdiction to hear the grievance, arguing that the decision to dismiss the employees was protected by parliamentary privilege.4 The Court released three sets of reasons with Justice Karakatsanis writing for a six-judge majority, Justice Rowe writing concurring reasons, and Justices Côté and Brown writing joint dissenting reasons.5

II. THE TEST FOR DETERMINING THE SCOPE OF A PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE

In determining whether the President’s decision to dismiss the security guards was protected by parliamentary privilege, both Karakatsanis J.6 and the joint dissenting justices7 adopted the test from Canada (House of Commons) v Vaid.8 The test, coined as the “necessity test,”9 was outlined as follows in Vaid:

In order to sustain a claim of parliamentary privilege, the assembly or member seeking its immunity must show that the sphere of activity for which privilege is claimed is so closely and directly connected with the fulfilment by the assembly or its members of their functions as a legislative and deliberative body, including the assembly’s work in holding the government to account, that outside interference would undermine the level of autonomy required to enable the assembly and its members to do their work with dignity and efficiency.10

In Vaid, the Court applied this test to a similar set of facts. The case involved the dismissal of the Speaker of the House of Commons’ chauffeur, with the House of Commons arguing that its decision to dismiss the chauffeur was protected by a general privilege to manage its employees.11 In applying the necessity test, the Court rejected the claim of privilege over the management of all the House’s employees; however, it concluded that there was “no doubt that privilege attache[d] to the House’s relations with some of its employees.”12

III. THE DECISIONS

In determining whether the decision to dismiss the security guards fell within the scope of parliamentary privilege, Karakatsanis J. and the dissenting justices accepted that the security guards played an essential role in ensuring the Assembly was able to carry out its constitutional mandate.13 However, the justices disagreed over the sphere of activity engaged by the dismissal decision. Karakatsanis J. held that the sphere of activity engaged was the management of the security guards’ labour relations, concluding that “enforcement of basic employment and labour protections for the security guards would not undermine the independence required for the Assembly to fulfil its mandate with dignity and efficiency.”14 By contrast, the dissenting justices held that the sphere of activity engaged in the dismissal decision was security.15 In concluding that the power to dismiss without cause was necessary for the assembly to fulfil their legislative function, the dissenting justices reasoned as follows:

All of the guards’ tasks fall within a sphere of activity that is necessary to the proper functioning of the Assembly, namely security. In particular, the guards exercise the privilege to exclude strangers on the President’s behalf.

…

[W]here a speaker or president orders that someone be removed, the order can be carried out by another person, such as a doorkeeper. In exercising a parliamentary privilege, that person comes within a protected sphere of activity and therefore has the immunity conferred by the privilege to exclude strangers. Conversely, the speaker or president — who has the last word within this protected sphere of activity — can at any time revoke this delegation and prevent a guard from exercising this privilege on his or her behalf.

…

Otherwise, the delegation of a privilege would automatically mean its extinction, since the President would lose effective control of it — that is, control over the identity of the employees responsible for obeying the orders and instructions given by the President for the benefit of parliamentarians.16

Karakatsanis J. rejected this line of reasoning, holding that allowing a grievance would merely delay the finality of any termination decision and concluded that the ability to control who exercised the delegated privilege was not impaired.17

IV. COMMENTARY

The joint dissenting justices provided compelling reasons for recognizing a privilege to dismiss the Assembly’s security guards: if the President is not furnished with the ability to terminate security guards at will, the privilege to exclude strangers could be rendered wholly ineffective. If, for example, the President is forced to employ a security guard who is incapable or unwilling to exercise the delegated privilege to exclude strangers, it could lead to the Assembly being overrun by protestors and unable to perform its legislative function. While this may be a remote result of the failure of a security guard to exercise the privilege delegated to him or her, the Court has held that after a privilege is recognized as necessary in one circumstance, it is within the discretion of the legislature to determine on what grounds to exercise that privilege.18

Karakatsanis J.’s rejection of the delegated privilege argument by characterizing grievances as mere delays presupposes that conduct providing the President with a suspicion that a security guard could fail to exercise his or her delegated privilege would necessarily provide just cause for dismissal. This reasoning is flawed for two main reasons. First, because the onus to establish just cause rests on employers, they are required to provide evidence to support their decision to terminate.19 Second, while employers may have some evidence to provide cause for discipline, the evidence may not provide sufficient grounds for termination.20 The effect of failing to provide evidence or sufficient grounds for termination on the President’s ability to control who exercises the delegated privilege is highlighted by the remedies for unjust dismissal: reinstatement and damages.21 In the former case, the legislature is forced to employ an employee who may not exercise the delegated privilege; whereas in the latter case, the legislature is penalized for selecting who can exercise the delegated privilege.

V. CONCLUSION

While Karakatsanis J.’s reasoning may be flawed, the judgment now stands as the leading authority on whether parliamentary privilege protects legislatures from claims of unjust dismissal. Given that Karakatsanis J. classified grievances as mere delays in the finality of termination decisions, it is difficult to imagine any scenario where the necessity test will be met. It is unlikely that the need to instantly finalize any termination decision will be necessary for a legislature to carry out its function. As a result, any hope provided by Vaid that the termination of some employees could fall within the scope of a parliamentary privilege has been erased.


[1]           2018 SCC 39, 426 DLR (4th) 585 [Chagnon].

[2]           Ibid at para 81.

[3]           Ibid at para 6.

[4]           Ibid at para 7.

[5]           This comment focuses on the reasons provided by Karakatsanis J. and the joint dissenting justices. The reasons provided by Rowe J. focused on whether legislatures are bound by legislation they enact regulating their operations and not whether parliamentary privilege can be raised in response to a claim of unjust dismissal.

[6]           Chagnon, supra note 1 at para 43.

[7]           Ibid at para 127.

[8]           2005 SCC 30, [2005] 1 SCR 667 [Vaid].

[9]           Ibid at paras 41-46.

[10]         Ibid at para 46.

[11]         Ibid at para 2.

[12]         Ibid at para 75 [emphasis in original].

[13]         Chagnon, supra note 1 at paras 38–9, 78–80.

[14]         Ibid at para 44.

[15]         Ibid at para 131.

[16]         Ibid at paras 131, 139–40 [emphasis in original].

[17]         Ibid at 56.

[18]         Vaid, supra note 8 at para 29.

[19]         Donald J.M. Brown, David M. Beatty & Adam Beatty, Canadian Labour Arbitration, 4th ed (Toronto: Thomson Reuters, 2006) at 7:2300 (Westlaw).

[20]         Ibid at 7:4000.

[21]         Ibid at 2:1570.

Share this:
    

Archives

Categories

SUBSCRIBE

Subscribe for the latest news from our blog "Legal Sourcery".


Submit News Post

Submission Guidelines

Archives

Categories

Firm Regulation Contact Us

Quick Links

  • About Us
  • LSS Initiatives
  • For Lawyers & Students
  • For the Public
  • Regulation
  • CPD

Recent Posts

  • National Indigenous History Month and National Indigenous Peoples Day 2025
  • Pride Season
  • 2025 Law Society of Saskatchewan Medalists Announced
  • Continued La Ronge Provincial Court Closure – June 9-13
  • New Journal Issues – May 2025 

Recent Comments

  • Chinye Nwanze on New Journal Issues – May 2024
  • Connie Kang on New Journal Issues – May 2024
  • Kwitsel Tatel on Notice of Hearing
  • Chinye Nwanze on Notice of Hearing
  • Kwitsel Tatel on Notice of Hearing

Next Event

Webinar Replay – Calculating Income for Child Support: Top Ten Cases (CPD 393)

DD days
HH hours
MM mins
SS secs

Hooray!

Upcoming Events

Jul 9
12:00 pm - 1:00 pm CST

Webinar Replay – Calculating Income for Child Support: Top Ten Cases (CPD 393)

Jul 16
12:00 pm - 1:00 pm CST

Webinar Replay – When Estates Go to Court: Recent Cases in Estate Litigation from 2023-2024 (CPD 406)

Aug 13
12:00 pm - 1:30 pm CST

Webinar Replay – Common Pitfalls in Residential Real Estate Law (CPD 381)

Aug 20
12:00 pm - 1:00 pm CST

Webinar Replay – Navigating the Appeal Process: A Guide to Preparing and Filing Documents with the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (CPD 404)

Sep 24
12:00 pm - 1:00 pm CST Event Series

Webinar – The Ultimate Automation Playbook for Busy Law Firms (CPD 429)

View Calendar

Online Tools

  • Search
  • Contact Us
  • Terms of Use

Subscribe Now

Subscribe for the latest news from our blog "Legal Sourcery".

Stay Connected

Twitter
Facebook
Linkedin

© 2025 Law Society of Saskatchewan. Website & Hosting by OmniOnline