Click here to read answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Bill 148 damages.
Click here to add your email to our Bill 148 update mailing list.
On August 22, 2017 then-Premier Stephen McNeil brought Bill 148 – Public Services Sustainability (2015) Act into effect. The Bill imposed a non-negotiated wage settlement that restricted collective bargaining and unilaterally removed longstanding articles from our collective agreements. CUPE and the other unions representing the workers whose rights were violated through this Bill challenged the legislation in court, and on February 25th, 2026, Justice Ann E. Smith of the Nova Scotia Supreme court issued a decision declaring Bill 148 to be unconstitutional.
Justice Smith issued her order on November 9th, 2026. The order requires the Province to pay damages to union members who were employed during the four years that Bill 148 restrained collective bargaining in recognition of the violation of their rights.
The order provides for damages of up to $5,000 to be paid to affected members depending on certain criteria, such as their date of hire and collective agreement language regarding long service awards:
- $1,250 if the member worked during the first year of wage restraint.
- $1,250 if the member worked during the second year of wage restraint.
- $750 if the member worked during the third year of wage restraint.
- $500 if the member worked during the fourth year of wage restraint.
- $1,250 for each member who was eligible for a Service Award and would have accrued additional service towards the Service Award but for Bill 148.
The exact years the wage restraint was in place vary by bargaining unit. The years can be identified by the four years in which the wage increases were set at 0%, 0%, 1%, and 1.5% with 0.5% on the last day of the fourth year.
The order does not reactivate service award accrual.
As part of discussions with the Province, we were able to get the Province to promise that it will not try to get the decision overturned. Justice Smith’s decision will stand as a precedent for future governments who would consider using legislation to restrain collective bargaining rights.