Analysis

1. The Court has concluded that the government did not negotiate in good faith with the union after the Bill 28 Decision. One of the problems was that the government representatives were pre-occupied by another strategy. Their strategy was to put such pressure on the union that it would provoke a strike by the union. The government representatives thought this would give government the opportunity to gain political support for imposing legislation on the union. 
2. The Court concludes that there is no basis for distinguishing the new legislation from the previous findings of this Court. The new duplicative legislation substantially interferes with the s. 2(d) Charter rights of teachers, which protects their freedom to associate to make representations to their employer and have the employer consider them in good faith. 
3. As a result, the Court finds the duplicative legislation in Bill 22 to be unconstitutional, namely s. 8, part of s. 13, and s. 24, set out in Appendix A.
4. The unconstitutional provisions that have not already expired, ss. 8 and 24, are struck down.   When legislation is struck down as unconstitutional, it means it was never valid, from the date of its enactment. This means that the legislatively deleted terms in the teachers’ collective agreement have been restored retroactively and can also be the subject of future bargaining.  
5. Striking down the unconstitutional legislation will have implications for teachers and their employers but both sides will have interests in resolving these implications through collective bargaining and the tools already existing to resolve labour disputes. 
6. The Court has also concluded that it is appropriate and just to award damages against the government pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter. This is in order to provide an effective remedy in relation to the government’s unlawful action in extending the unconstitutional prohibitions on collective bargaining to the end of June 2013. The government must pay the BCTF damages of $2 million. 
7. The BCTF has also challenged other action taken by the government since the Bill 28 Decision: the government’s conduct in issuing Mandate 2010 to the employers’ association for collective bargaining, commonly known as the net zero mandate; the government’s legislation appointing a mediator with a narrow mandate at the end of the 2011-2012 round of collective bargaining, Mr. Charles Jago; and two regulations enacted by the government, the Learning Improvement Fund Regulation, and the Class Size and Compensation Regulation.  
8. The Court concludes that none of this other challenged government conduct was unconstitutional. The government has a role and responsibility in respect of the education system that entitles it to establish some fiscal and policy parameters around the collective bargaining between the teachers’ employee association, the BCTF, and that of the employers’