ONTARIO—Bill 124, the ‘Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019,’ has been deemed unconstitutional by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The ruling has been called a triumph for workers and the practice of collective bargaining, heralding positive implications for female workers across Ontario, asserts the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF).
The result for teachers is a retroactive salary arbitrated increase of 2.75 percent for the third year of their contract. The teachers’ unions had already negotiated a .75 percent increase in each of the first two years of their contract—leaving the third year to arbitration.
In its decision, the majority of the Court of Appeal for Ontario determined that the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019, commonly referred to as “Bill 124,” infringed upon the collective bargaining rights of unionized employees within the broader public sector. Enacted by the Ontario government in 2019, Bill 124 imposed constraints limiting wage and compensation increases to one percent during each of three one-year moderation periods in the broader public sector. In 2022, a judge in Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice nullified the law, citing workers’ freedom of association rights violations. The Ontario government subsequently lodged an appeal.
“Today’s verdict is a win for the women who constitute 79 percent of healthcare, education and various other workers impacted by Bill 124,” affirms Kat Owens, LEAF project director and Co-counsel. “This ruling empowers these workers to advocate for equitable compensation, enhanced job security, and better working conditions—fundamental entitlements, particularly amid a pandemic and escalating inflation.”
LEAF advocated for the court’s consideration of the gendered repercussions of Bill 124. (Across Ontario, women represent the majority of workers in sectors such as healthcare, social services, and education where systemic biases undervalue the work, resulting in disparities in compensation, job security and working conditions—particularly for racialized women.)
While the majority of the decision may lack a pronounced gender perspective, it explicitly acknowledges that Bill 124 deprived organized public sector workers, many of whom are women, racialized individuals, or low-income earners, of the ability to negotiate for improved compensation or non-monetary benefits.
The Expositor spoke with Liana Holm of Rainbow District School Board, who said, “Bill 124 that was passed was an attack on all public sector workers due in part that they are predominantly female workers, nurses, teachers, personal support workers and custodial workers. Our government does not value unions; I will be blunt and say that they would bust all the unions if they could have unfettered access to the people of this province.”
“I would also like to comment on the fact that the government wants to see these services (health care, education and manufacturing) privatized, which would disproportionately impact vulnerable communities, and would be an attack on the impoverished community, including but not limited to women, children, and racialized people,” Ms. Holm continued.
“We are very fortunate that Justice Caplan returned and repealed Bill 124, which was an attempt to legislate instead of negotiate,” Ms. Holm added. “This decision highlights the fact that what they tried to do was utterly wrong. They must show up to the negotiating table if they want to strike a fair deal.”
This case underscores the significance of collective bargaining rights within sectors of Ontario’s economy predominantly occupied by women, such as healthcare, social services and education LEAF states, which intervened before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
LEAF’s arguments centered on how Section 28 of the Charter mandates courts to consider gender when interpreting other Charter rights. In the context of freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Charter, this entails recognizing how collective bargaining addresses gender-specific labour issues such as equitable wages, compensation, staffing, retention and precarious employment. “Laws like Bill 124 have a disproportionately adverse effect on sectors of the economy where women dominate the workforce due to the undervaluation of gendered labour,” LEAF states.
The Court of Appeal heard arguments in June 2023 and reversed its decision.
