Alain Préfontaine

The Court allowed the appeal in part in a labour grievance over mandatory after-hour standby duties for federal immigration lawyers.

The majority held the adjudicator reasonably found the directive was not a fair and reasonable exercise of management rights under the collective agreement, so that portion of the adjudicator’s order was restored.

However, the Court agreed the directive did not infringe section 7 liberty interests, because the impacts on personal time did not engage fundamental personal choices protected by the Charter.

The defendants brought a motion for a further and better affidavit of documents, seeking the plaintiff's complete corporate tax returns and financial statements from 2006 to 2012.

The underlying action involved claims for breach of contract and lost opportunity related to two government requests for proposals.

The court found the request for tax returns overbroad and irrelevant, as the plaintiff was not claiming general lost income.

However, the court ordered the production of corporate records relating to the distribution of shares to individuals who worked on the proposals, as the plaintiff claimed it paid workers in shares due to lost profits.

Success being divided, no costs were ordered.

Following the abandonment of a motion for leave to file evidence responding to a motion to strike portions of a statement of claim, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The underlying action alleged defamation and abuse of public office.

The moving party argued that its motion became unnecessary after the opposing party abandoned a ground asserting the truth of the impugned statements.

The court held the motion for leave was a reasonable response to the position originally taken, but rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs as excessive.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis and reduced after review of the bill of costs.

The appellant, a former member of the Canadian Forces, brought a class action against the Crown challenging the deduction of his disability pension from his long-term disability benefits.

The Crown argued the action should be stayed because the lawfulness of the deduction could only be challenged by judicial review.

Applying TeleZone, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Court has jurisdiction to entertain the action and declined to exercise its residual discretion to stay the proceedings, as the essential character of the claim was for alleged breaches of s. 15(1) of the Charter rather than a veiled application for judicial review.

During a labour dispute, veterinarians employed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) stopped working, halting meat inspections at Quebec slaughterhouses.

The CFIA subsequently ordered the uninspected meat destroyed.

The slaughterhouse operators sued the veterinarians and their union for damages in the Quebec Superior Court.

The defendants brought recourses in warranty against the CFIA.

The CFIA moved to dismiss, arguing the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction because its decision had not been quashed on judicial review by the Federal Court.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the CFIA's appeal, holding that judicial review is not a prerequisite for a civil action for damages against the federal Crown, and that a lawful administrative decision can still constitute a civil fault under Quebec law.

The appellant generic drug manufacturer sought damages against the federal Crown for losses incurred when Health Canada prohibited the sale of its drug.

The Crown successfully moved for summary judgment in the lower courts on the basis that the appellant was required to first invalidate the prohibition decision via judicial review.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, applying its companion decision in TeleZone.

The Court held that section 17 of the Federal Courts Act grants concurrent jurisdiction over claims for damages against the Crown, and nothing in the Act requires a plaintiff to successfully challenge the underlying administrative decision on judicial review before pursuing a tort action.

The appellant obtained import permits from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to import wheat.

The permits were revoked while the cargo was en route, and a new permit with different conditions was issued, causing the appellant to incur additional costs.

The appellant brought an action for damages in the Federal Court without first seeking judicial review of the licensing decisions.

The Crown successfully moved to strike the claim on the basis that judicial review was a prerequisite.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, applying its companion decision in TeleZone, holding that the Federal Court has concurrent jurisdiction over claims for damages against the Crown and that a prior successful judicial review application is not required.

The respondent, a prison inmate, spent over four years in solitary confinement.

He brought an action for damages in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the federal Crown and a prison warden, alleging arbitrary detention and cruel and unusual punishment contrary to the Charter.

The appellants argued that the claim was a collateral attack on the segregation orders and that the respondent must first seek judicial review in the Federal Court.

The Supreme Court of Canada, applying its concurrent decision in TeleZone, held that the Federal Courts Act does not grant the Federal Court exclusive jurisdiction over such damages claims, and the provincial superior court has jurisdiction to hear the action without prior judicial review.

The respondent, TeleZone Inc., brought an action for damages against the federal Crown in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice after its application for a telecommunications licence was rejected by Industry Canada.

The Attorney General of Canada challenged the jurisdiction of the Superior Court, arguing that based on the Grenier principle, the claim was a collateral attack on the Minister's decision and that TeleZone had to first seek judicial review in the Federal Court.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, overruling Grenier.

The Court held that the Federal Courts Act and the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act grant concurrent jurisdiction to provincial superior courts to hear damages claims against the federal Crown, and there is no requirement to first quash the underlying administrative decision via judicial review in the Federal Court.

The appellants filed a complaint alleging that Industry Canada failed to provide community economic development services in French of equal quality to those provided in English in the Huronia region.

The Commissioner of Official Languages found a breach of the Official Languages Act.

By the time the appellants applied for a court remedy under s. 77 of the Act, Industry Canada had taken corrective measures.

The Federal Court of Appeal held that while there was an initial breach, no remedy other than costs was appropriate because the remaining deficiencies related to program content rather than linguistic access, which fell outside Part IV of the Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the remaining issues were beyond the scope of Part IV, though it clarified that substantive equality may sometimes require services with distinct content depending on the nature of the program.

The appellants brought actions seeking a declaration that the RCMP, when acting as a provincial police force in New Brunswick under an agreement between the federal and provincial governments, is bound by the language obligations imposed on New Brunswick institutions by s. 20(2) of the Charter.

The Federal Court of Appeal held that the RCMP was only bound by federal language obligations.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that because RCMP members are designated as provincial peace officers and perform the role of an institution of the New Brunswick government, they must comply with s. 20(2) of the Charter and provide services in both official languages.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that s. 10 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act applies only to civilian staff appointed and employed by the RCMP Commissioner.

It does not apply to civilian staff appointed or employed by a municipality under a police services agreement entered into by the Solicitor General pursuant to s. 20 of the Act.

The appellants applied under Rule 62 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada to review the Registrar's taxation of costs, which had been awarded to the respondent on a solicitor and client basis.

The appellants argued the Registrar erred in principle by deferring to counsel's estimate of preparation time rather than applying the proper factors.

The Court dismissed the application, finding that the Registrar had properly considered the relevant factors and that the total time allowed, while seemingly high, was not clearly wrong or the result of an error in principle.