 |
| Tega Adjara |
This article argues that the evolution from laissez-faire contractualism to a statutory and judicially moderated employment regime reflects an implicit engagement with Marx’s central insight, that the labour relationship is characterized by structural inequality. Canadian legislatures and courts have developed doctrines that mitigate this inequality through minimum standards, collective bargaining protections, human rights legislation and the judicial recognition of worker vulnerability. The analysis draws on leading Supreme Court of Canada and Alberta authorities to illustrate how the law has progressively incorporated principles that respond to the very conditions of exploitation Marx described.
I. Introduction
Although Das Kapital was not drafted as a legal text, its account of labour, production and power has exerted a quiet yet enduring influence on Western legal systems. Marx’s analysis of surplus value, alienation and asymmetrical bargaining power offered a framework for understanding why contractual freedom alone cannot guarantee justice in the workplace. This article considers how Canadian employment law, through a century of statutory interventions and judicial elaboration, has internalized Marx’s critique by recognizing the social reality of inequality between employer and employee.
GeorgiosArt: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
II. Marx’s foundational insight, the absence of bargaining equality
A. Labour power and structural economic dependence
Marx rejected the 19th-century fiction that workers and employers participate in truly voluntary exchanges. For Marx, the worker, who “owns nothing but the power of labour,” is economically compelled to accept conditions that advantage capital. This dynamic continues to inform contemporary understandings of workplace vulnerability.
B. Canadian recognition of inequality in contractual relations
Canadian courts have routinely acknowledged the inherent imbalance in employment contracts. In Machtinger v. HOJ Industries Ltd., [1992] S.C.J. No. 41, the Supreme Court of Canada held that employment agreements cannot contract out of minimum statutory protections. This reasoning rests on the assumption that employees generally lack the bargaining agency to negotiate adequate terms. As the court observed, statutory floors are necessary to prevent employers from using contractual formality to erode basic worker rights.
Similarly, in Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd. (c.o.b. Public Press), [1997] S.C.J. No. 94, the court recognized the psychological and economic vulnerability of dismissed employees. The court’s acknowledgment of the “power imbalance” inherent in employment relationships echoes Marx’s premise that the worker does not negotiate from a position of equal strength.
III. The legislative response, constraining market power
A. Provincial employment standards as corrective mechanisms
One of the most tangible responses to the imbalance of power between labour and capital is the creation of employment standards. In Alberta, the Employment Standards Code, RSA 2000, c. E-9 imposes mandatory minimum wages, overtime rules, rest requirements, termination pay and job-protected leaves. These are instruments of distributive justice, ensuring that essential working conditions are not left to the vagaries of bargaining inequality.
Across Canada, similar statutory regimes emerged as legislatures recognized that the laissez-faire employment model lacked the capacity to protect workers from coercive or demeaning conditions. Although these statutes do not adopt Marxist economic structures, they embody a policy orientation consonant with Marx’s critique, correcting imbalances that contract alone cannot resolve.
B. Occupational health and safety legislation, the human cost of productivity
Marx was deeply concerned with the physical degradation of workers under industrial capitalism. Canadian occupational health and safety statutes, including Alberta’s Occupational Health and Safety Act, operate in direct response to this concern. They impose non-delegable duties on employers to provide safe work environments, thereby shifting responsibility away from workers, who historically bore the risks of industrial harm.
IV. Human rights frameworks, from economic vulnerability to social equality
While Marx primarily analyzed class-based exploitation, Canadian human rights legislation expanded the inquiry to intersecting forms of disadvantage. The Alberta Human Rights Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibit discriminatory employment practices on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, disability and other protected grounds. These protections exceed Marx’s original formulation by recognizing that exploitation is not merely economic but also shaped by social hierarchies and historical injustices.
In Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission) v. Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Co., [2007] A.J. No. 882, the court affirmed the primacy of human rights in employment settings and held that employer policies must conform to statutory equality norms. The decision reflects a legal culture that no longer views the workplace as a private domain insulated from scrutiny.
V. Collective bargaining as institutionalized resistance to inequality
A. Statutory frameworks
Marx emphasized the necessity of collective organization as a means of countering concentrated economic power. Canadian labour law institutionalized this principle through comprehensive legislation, including Alberta’s Labour Relations Code, RSA 2000, c. L-1, which protects the formation of unions, collective bargaining and the right to strike. These statutory rights allow workers to negotiate terms more equitably, thereby moderating the extractive tendencies Marx described.
B. Constitutionalization of labour rights
In Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada, 2015 SCC 1, the Supreme Court affirmed that meaningful collective bargaining is protected under s. 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court acknowledged that collective action mitigates structural vulnerabilities intrinsic to employment. This constitutional protection marks a significant doctrinal shift, transforming workplace power dynamics through enforceable rights.
VI. Judicial recognition of work as an aspect of human dignity
A profound development in Canadian employment law is the recognition that work is integral to human dignity, identity and social participation.
A. Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, [2008] S.C.J. No. 40
In refining the doctrine of wrongful dismissal damages, the court emphasized that the employer’s conduct must be assessed in light of the employee’s inherent vulnerability. The court rejected models that trivialized the relational nature of employment, affirming that the law must protect the dignity of workers.
B. Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, 2015 SCC 10
This case further reinforced that constructive dismissal cannot be used as a coercive tool. The court stressed the requirement of good faith and fairness in employer conduct, demonstrating a judicial willingness to scrutinize the exercise of managerial authority.
C. Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71 and the general principle of good faith
Although Bhasin concerned commercial contracts, the Supreme Court’s articulation of an organizing principle of good faith has influenced employment jurisprudence. By imposing duties of honesty and fairness, the court acknowledged that unequal bargaining power requires countervailing legal norms.
VII. The limits of Marx and the Canadian expansion beyond his framework
Marx’s analysis did not exhaust the dimensions of workplace injustice. He did not account fully for gender inequality, racial discrimination or the colonial exploitation of Indigenous labour. Canadian employment law, informed by human rights principles, has corrected these omissions.
Cases addressing discriminatory pay, pregnancy discrimination and racial harassment illustrate a legal system that extends beyond Marx’s economic model to address broader social harms. The emphasis on substantive equality in Canadian jurisprudence reflects a modern understanding of exploitation that is more comprehensive than Marx could have envisioned.
VIII. Contemporary challenges, precarious work and the re-emergence of inequality
Despite considerable progress, Canadian employment law continues to grapple with new manifestations of power imbalance.
The rise of gig work, characterized by flexible arrangements and the absence of traditional employment protections, mirrors the casualized labour that Marx critiqued. Migrant workers, often employed under restrictive permit conditions, remain vulnerable to coercion and abuse. Judicial and legislative responses have begun to address these issues, but the complexity of modern labour markets demands ongoing reform.
Conclusion
Canadian employment law has evolved through a process of incremental recognition of the structural inequality at the heart of the employment relationship. Although Canada has never adopted Marxist economics, many of the protections embedded in contemporary labour standards, human rights statutes and judicial doctrine reflect an implicit engagement with Marx’s foundational critique. Courts and legislatures have moved steadily towards a model that constrains employer power, safeguards worker dignity and embeds fairness within the fabric of employment relations.
In this respect, the influence of Das Kapital is neither doctrinal nor ideological, but intellectual. Canadian labour law has become a site where concerns about exploitation, inequality and justice are translated into enforceable rights. The law, shaped by democratic values rather than revolutionary theory, has embraced aspects of Marx’s analysis while discarding the structural prescriptions he advanced. The result is a uniquely Canadian synthesis, a legal order informed by critique yet committed to liberal democratic principles.
After completing his LLB at the University of East London, Tega Adjara pursued a specialized LLM in international law and the global economy. Currently, he is working for the Alberta government sentencing department.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.