Skip to main content

PLEASE NOTE: For everyone’s safety, Fasken recommends anyone on-site at our Canadian offices be familiar with the COVID-19 recommendations in place which may include one or more of the following: social distancing, hand sanitizing, wearing a mask in common areas and proof of full vaccination. These measures apply to lawyers, staff, clients, service providers and other visitors.

Client Work

Syndicat des professeurs et des professeures de l’Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières v. Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, 2010 SCC 30, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 132

Reading Time 1 minute read Subscribe


In 2010, represented the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières before the Supreme Court of Canada. In this case, the highest court in the country was asked to determine whether a grievance arbitrator had jurisdiction to hear a dispute in which an employee claimed protection under section 124 of the Act Respecting Labour Standards (A.L.S) (dismissal for good and sufficient cause) when the employee’s collective agreement did not provide for recourse in the event of termination of employment. Contrary to what the Union had argued, the Supreme Court ruled that section 124 A.L.S could not be implicitly incorporated into collective agreements. Rather, it found that under the “hierarchy of relevant sources” test, section 124 A.L.S had the effect of invalidating any provision of a collective agreement that was contrary to that section.


    Sign up for updates from this team

    Receive email updates from our team