Suspension Of Arbitration Hearing Pending A Court Decision On The Constitutionality Of Bill 15: Two Contradictory Decisions

Following the publication of our last article, entitled "Quebec's Bid to Reform Municipal Pension Plans Will Have to Wait for the Superior Court to Determine the Validity of Bill 15", which concerned the decision rendered by arbitrator Claude Martin in the matter of Ville de Montréal v. Fraternité des policiers et policières de Montréal1, a second interlocutory decision in a similar case was rendered barely one month later in the matter ofVille de Montréal v. Syndicat des professionnelles et professionnels municipaux de Montréal2.

While this latest decision deals with the same issue as the decision rendered by arbitrator Martin, it arrives at the opposite conclusion. Arbitrator René Beaupré ultimately dismissed the union's request to suspend the hearing of the arbitration while the constitutionality of the Act to foster the financial health and sustainability of municipal defined benefit pension plans ("Bill 15") is being contested before the Quebec Superior Court, and convened the parties to the hearing on the merits.

Distinctions between the decisions of arbitrators Martin and Beaupré

Arbitrator Beaupré begins his analysis with an overview of the objectives of Bill 15, i.e. restoring the financial health of defined-benefit pension plans in the municipal sector in order to ensure their sustainability. His analysis of the provisions of Bill 15 aimed at restructuring such pension plans revealed, in his view, the legislature's concern to achieve the objectives of the bill as soon as possible3. It is evident that the narrow time constraints imposed by the legislature for implementing the restructuring process played a major role in the arbitrator's analysis of the request submitted to him.

At the outset, arbitrator Beaupré concluded, as did arbitrator Martin, that he did not have the power to decide constitutional questions, such as the compliance of Bill 15 with the Canadian and Quebec charters of rights and freedoms.

In this matter, the unions argued that their request was not for a stay of the application of a statute, such that the criteria established by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Metropolitan Stores4 decision did not apply. In their view, they were not asking for the suspension of the application of Bill 15 but merely for a case-management decision, akin to a request for a postponement, for the sake of the proper administration of justice and in order to avoid a plurality of proceedings pending the Superior Court's decision...