Parc Jean-Drapeau operator loses bid to impose essential services during strike

Quebec’s Tribunal administratif du travail has rejected an attempt by the operator of Parc Jean-Drapeau to require essential services during a planned one-day strike, finding that the organization was neither a municipality under the Labour Code nor an enterprise whose operations made it equivalent to a public service.

Administrative judge Michel Maranda issued the September 20, 2026 decision in Société du parc Jean-Drapeau et Syndicat des cols bleus regroupés de Montréal (SCFP, 301), file 1496730-71-2609. The tribunal declared the union’s notice for a September 21 strike compliant with the Code. The reasons decide the legal status of that notice, not whether the announced strike subsequently took place.

The ruling separates two questions that the employer sought to connect: whether its operations fall within the public-service framework, and whether a work stoppage could endanger public health or safety. Having rejected public-service status, the tribunal did not need to decide the latter threshold.

Municipal ties did not make the society a municipality

The society is a non-profit organization operating cultural, recreational, tourism and other activities on Montréal’s Sainte-Hélène and Notre-Dame islands. During collective bargaining, the blue-collar union gave notice on September 16 of a strike lasting from midnight to 11:59 p.m. on September 21.

The employer responded by asking the tribunal to classify it as a public service and require essential services. Such a classification would bring the strike within statutory requirements that include negotiating the services to be maintained. The union disputed both proposed routes to that result: treating the society as a municipality or assimilating its operations to a public service.

Under article 111.0.16 of the Labour Code, municipalities and intermunicipal boards are among the listed public services. The society argued that its relationship with Montréal was so close that it should itself be treated as a municipality. It relied on the city’s role in creating the organization, appointing its directors and senior leadership, and financing its activities.

The evidence included a city contribution of approximately $15.3 million for the 2025 financial year, representing about 42 per cent of the society’s operating revenue, as well as municipal financing for most capital works at the park. The employer also pointed to the requirement that the islands retain a public vocation and remain available to Montréal residents for park or exhibition purposes.

Maranda accepted that this evidence demonstrated a degree of municipal control over the society’s operations and direction. But that did not make it a municipality in its own right. The society had a separate existence, its own headquarters and its own employees carrying out the mission entrusted to it.

The wording of Montréal’s charter was important. Article 224 of Annex C permits the creation of a non-profit organization by letters patent, describes it as an agent of the city and deems it a municipality for two specified provincial statutes. Neither is the Labour Code. The tribunal reasoned that if the legislature had intended the same exception for the Code, it would have said so.

Optional activities and alternative facilities mattered

The employer’s alternative argument relied on article 111.0.17. That provision allows the tribunal to impose essential-services obligations on an enterprise not expressly listed in the Code if the nature of its operations makes it analogous to a public service and a strike could endanger public health or safety.

To assess that status, the tribunal applied a framework drawn from its earlier case law. Relevant characteristics include a public mission, service to a community, major importance in daily life, normally uninterrupted provision, essential or general-interest needs, universal availability and an absence of substitutes that leaves people little choice but to use the service.

The park’s scale and popularity did not settle that assessment. The reasons describe extensive green spaces, trails, a beach, an aquatic complex, sporting facilities and major events. They also note the work of permanent and seasonal blue-collar employees in functions including patrols, customer service, gardening, maintenance and skilled trades.

The tribunal nevertheless found the nature of the activities decisive. Cultural, recreational and tourism activities, however welcome to residents, were optional rather than essential to everyday life. It also found that Montréal and nearby municipalities offered hundreds of other parks and sporting facilities, including swimming pools. Residents were not dependent on this particular park for access to those services.

Those conclusions defeated the request to treat the society as a public service. The ruling concerned this employer and its operations under the Labour Code; it did not establish that every municipally connected organization or recreational facility necessarily falls outside the essential-services framework.

Safety concerns did not change the statutory classification

The society presented evidence about possible consequences if blue-collar tasks stopped. Its concerns included power failures, contaminated syringes found during cleaning, and employees’ role in security measures for events such as a cycling championship whose course crossed Notre-Dame Island.

After rejecting the requested classification, the tribunal pointed to other legal mechanisms. Article 109.3 permits an employer to take necessary measures to prevent destruction or serious deterioration of its property during a strike. The reasons specifically linked that provision to the employer’s concerns about possible electrical outages.

Maranda also referred to the Montréal police service’s statutory public-safety responsibilities. The islands are part of the city’s Ville-Marie borough. If the society or event organizers chose to keep activities or facilities open despite the announced strike, they could raise safety concerns with the city and police. These observations did not amount to a finding that a strike posed no possible safety risks.

The tribunal dismissed the application, declared that the society’s operations did not make it analogous to a public service, and declared that the parties were not subject to an obligation to maintain essential services in the event of a strike. It separately confirmed that the September 16 notice for the specified one-day stoppage complied with the Code. The decision’s practical distinction is between municipal involvement in an organization and the particular statutory status needed to restrict strike activity through essential-services requirements.