Union members added as defendants in B.C. Election Act lawsuit
Two B.C. union members are taking on their unions in court for fighting recent changes to the provincial Election Act.
Gloria Laurence and Wendy Weis have won the right to be added to a B.C. Supreme Court lawsuit launched against the province by the B.C. Teachers' Federation and the Canadian Union of Public Employees.
The women will be added as defendants in the court case, alongside B.C. Attorney General Wally Oppal. The case is expected to begin Dec. 1 and run for three weeks.
The changes to the Election Act limit election spending by third-party groups, including unions, to $3,000 per riding — to a $150,000 maximum — during the 28-day campaign and for 60 days before the writ is dropped.
Laurence and Weis have said they do not share the political views of their unions and oppose their compulsory membership dues being used to finance election advertising.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Bill 42, which also includes the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators of British Columbia and the B.C. Nurses' Union, were against adding the two women as defendants.
But Justice Frank Cole found Lawrence and Weis have an interest in the outcome of the case.
"As individuals whose interests are specifically invoked in the statement of claim, it is difficult to see how the applicants can be said not to have a direct interest in the outcome of the action between the parties," Cole said in a ruling from earlier this month that was posted on the court website Friday.
Amendments passed despite opposition
The Liberal government pushed Bill 42, the Election Amendment Act, through the legislature on the final day of the spring sitting, despite an outcry from the Opposition New Democrats.
The changes to the Election Act limit election spending from third-party groups, including unions, to $3,000 per riding — to a $150,000 maximum — during the 28-day campaign and for 60 days prior to the writ being dropped.
The plaintiffs argued against adding Laurence and Weis to the proceedings on several grounds, including the fact that they had not sought out alternative forms of relief, such as the union grievance procedure.
Cole said lawyers for the plaintiffs contradicted that very point.
"Their counsel conceded in oral submissions that none of these are forums in which the applicants could assert their support for the constitutionality of the legislation," Cole wrote.
Cole disagreed with the contention that adding Laurence and Weis as parties would "hijack" the proceedings into discussions about compulsory union dues and the ability of unions to participate in elections.
He included a series of conditions by which the new defendants must abide, including restricting their oral submissions to one day and binding them to the same deadlines as the attorney general.