The Federal Court has dismissed an attempt by two labour organizations to challenge the decision of the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise (CORE) to conclude its review of a complaint against Mark’s Work Wearhouse over supplier practices in Bangladesh.
The United Steelworkers and the Canadian Labour Congress argued that CORE wrongly limited its mandate when it ended its fact-finding review of allegations that Mark’s suppliers failed to pay workers, primarily women, a living wage. The court rejected the application, finding the ombudsperson’s final report was advisory only and not subject to judicial review.
Complaint over Bangladesh suppliers
The unions filed their complaint in November 2022, alleging Mark’s — a Canadian Tire subsidiary — relied on suppliers in Bangladesh that did not pay a living wage. They asked CORE to investigate, and to recommend that the company commit to ensuring living wages in its supply chain, disclose supplier information, negotiate with independent Bangladeshi unions, and issue a formal apology.
CORE accepted the complaint in December 2022 and began a fact-finding process. An initial assessment report in March 2024 led to a final report in October 2024, later published with the applicants’ comments included. The report acknowledged guidance in international instruments but concluded there was no consensus on what constitutes a living wage or how to operationalize the right.
CORE’s limited role
CORE determined that the International Labour Organization (ILO), not CORE, was the proper body to define a living wage. It emphasized that its mandate under the 2019 Order in Council precluded it from creating new standards on responsible business conduct. The final report noted that Canadian companies are required to follow domestic minimum wage laws, not living wage standards, and that the federal government does not provide direction on living wage policies.
The ombudsperson recommended that the Minister of International Trade review best practices on living wages and suggested Canadian companies sourcing abroad review their policies under responsible business conduct guidelines. It also recorded commitments from Mark’s and Canadian Tire to address transparency issues.
Unions seek judicial review
The applicants argued the final report was unreasonable and should be reviewed by the court. They said CORE erred by deferring to the ILO and by failing to justify its findings. They maintained the right to complain created a reviewable decision.
The respondents countered that the final report was not subject to review because it created no legal obligations and did not affect rights. They stressed that CORE’s role is advisory and that its recommendations carry no binding effect.
Court finds no justiciable decision
The court agreed with the respondents. It found the ombudsperson’s conclusions did not impose legal consequences, obligations, or prejudicial effects. Unlike a refusal to investigate, which could sometimes be justiciable, the final report was an advisory conclusion following a review that had been carried out.
“CORE has no authority to compel participation in a review or to impose consequences,” the court wrote. “The CORE’s final report is advisory only. It does not impact legal rights, impose legal obligations, or cause prejudicial effects, and therefore no right of review arises.”
Because the report was not justiciable, the court did not rule on whether the unions had standing or whether CORE’s decision was reasonable. Costs were awarded to Mark’s and Canadian Tire as the successful parties.
