"I Will Not Give You a Penny More Than You Deserve": Ontario V. Fraser and the (Uncertain) Right to Collectively Bargain in Canada (Case COMMENT/CHRONIQUE DE JURISPRUDENCE‪)‬

This case comment first reviews the jurisprudence that most directly informed the Supreme Court's ruling in Health Services. Second, this case comment applies the logic underpinning Health Services to the facts of the case at bar. The general argument is that Ontario v. Fraser represents an inconsistent application of two concepts that are central to the understanding of collective bargaining that the SCC had elucidated in Health Services: the meaning of "good faith" and "substantial interference". The comment concludes that Ontario v. Fraser has narrowed the right to collectively bargain to a greater degree than both proponents and opponents of Health Services might have anticipated. Ce commentaire d'arret fait d'abord etat de la jurisprudence ayant darectement informe la Cour supreme dans sa decision Health Services. Ensuite, ce commentaire d'arret applique la logique sous-jacente de Health Services aux faits en l'espece. L'argument general est que l'arret Ontario c. Fraser represente une application incoherente de deux concepts centraux, pour la comprehension du droit a la negociation collective, que la CSC a elucides dans Health Services : le sens des concepts de bonne foi et d' entraves substantielles . Ce commentaire conclut que l'arret Ontario c. Fraser limite le droit a la negociation collective a un tel degre que tant les defenseurs que les opposants de l'arret Health Services n'auraient pu l'anticiper.