Alain Gingras

The appellant appealed a decision declaring s. 144 of the Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases inoperative in relation to a requirement to pay issued under s. 126(4) of the Employment Insurance Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding a conflict of legislative purposes between the federal provision, which aims to recover overpayments summarily without regard to provincial exemptions, and the provincial provision exempting income replacement benefits from seizure.

The provincial provision was held to be constitutionally inoperative under the doctrine of federal paramountcy.

The respondents built an aerodrome on land zoned as agricultural in Quebec without obtaining prior authorization from the Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec.

The Commission ordered the land restored to its original state pursuant to provincial agricultural zoning legislation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the provincial legislation is valid as relating to land use planning and agriculture, it is constitutionally inapplicable to aerodromes under the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity because it impairs the core of the federal power over aeronautics.

The respondents operated a commercial float plane business on a lake in a municipality.

The municipality amended its zoning by-law to prohibit aerodromes on that lake, while permitting them on another lake.

The municipality sought an injunction to stop the respondents' aviation activities.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the by-law amendment was ultra vires the province because its pith and substance was the regulation of aeronautics, an exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The Court further held that the amendment was not saved by the ancillary powers doctrine because it was not rationally and functionally connected to the broader, valid municipal zoning scheme.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a non-resident of Quebec, retired from an accounting partnership and received a retirement allowance.

The province of Quebec assessed tax on a portion of the allowance equivalent to the percentage of the partnership's total income earned in the province.

The appellant challenged the assessment, arguing the taxing provisions exceeded the province's constitutional authority under s. 92(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the retirement allowance constituted a share of the partnership's business income earned in Quebec, and the province validly exercised its taxing power.

The Supreme Court of Canada delivered an oral judgment dismissing the appeal from the Quebec Court of Appeal regarding the interpretation of s. 76 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act and the division of powers concerning flour mills.

The Court adopted the reasons given by the Court of Appeal of Quebec and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal which held that the respondent telephone company is an interprovincial work and undertaking within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the undertaking falls under federal jurisdiction pursuant to ss. 92(10)(a) and 91(29) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court found that the nature of the services provided and the mode of operation, which allowed subscribers to send and receive interprovincial and international communications, placed the telecommunication signal carrier service within federal authority.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal which held that a federal statutory provision conferring a professional title was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, adopting the dissenting reasons of Marceau J.A. from the court below.

The Court held that the mere conferring and holding of a title is a neutral act unconstrained by the division of powers, provided it is not directly linked to the regulation of the profession.