Allan R. Hilton

The Quebec government referred questions to the Court of Appeal regarding the constitutionality of the Education Act (Bill 107), which proposed restructuring the province's school boards from a denominational basis (Catholic and Protestant) to a linguistic basis (French and English).

Various school boards and associations appealed the Court of Appeal's decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court held that the creation of linguistic school boards and the dissolution of existing denominational boards did not prejudicially affect the rights and privileges protected by s. 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, provided that the right to dissent and the existence of confessional schools in Montreal and Quebec City were maintained.

The Court upheld the legislation's mechanisms for exercising dissent, allocating property, and managing school taxes.

The respondent's late sister consulted the appellant doctor about a breast lump.

The doctor performed a biopsy, found cancer, but failed to inform the patient or arrange follow-up care.

Years later, the patient died of generalized cancer.

The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the application of the 'loss of chance' theory to medical malpractice in Quebec civil law, holding that traditional rules of causation apply.

However, the Court found the doctor liable for the patient's psychological suffering and diminished quality of life caused by the failure to inform and follow up, awarding $17,500 in damages.

The respondent stevedore sued the appellant shipping agent for an unpaid stevedoring contract.

The appellant defended on the basis that it acted solely as an agent for an unnamed principal, having signed the contract 'as Managing Operators only'.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that Canadian maritime law, which incorporates common law principles of contract and agency, governed the dispute.

Under these principles, an agent who clearly indicates they are contracting solely as an agent is not personally liable, even if the principal is unnamed.

The appeal was allowed and the action against the agent was dismissed.

The applicants brought a motion for a rehearing of their appeal, arguing that the Supreme Court of Canada's previous decision dismissing their appeal was rendered per incuriam.

They contended that the Court's findings on the state of the law in force at Confederation regarding school curriculum were based on historical facts reached without reference to the historical record.

The Court dismissed the motion, holding that disagreement with the Court's findings and an assertion that the decision was unreasonable based on the record are not grounds for a rehearing.

The appellant challenged the constitutional validity of sections 32 and 34 of the Newfoundland Workers' Compensation Act, 1983, which replace a worker's right to sue in tort with a statutory right to compensation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that this statutory bar does not constitute discrimination under section 15(1) of the Charter.

Applying the test from Andrews, the Court found that the situation of workers and dependents is not analogous to the enumerated grounds in section 15(1).

The appeal was dismissed.

The Government of Quebec adopted regulations establishing a uniform curriculum for all non-denominational subjects in all schools, while making special allowance for moral and religious instruction in Catholic and Protestant schools.

The appellant Protestant school boards sought a declaration that the regulations were ultra vires the province as violating their rights under s. 93(1) and (2) of the Constitution Act, 1867 to manage and control their own schools and regulate the course of study.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the regulations were intra vires, as the province has exclusive jurisdiction over education and the regulations did not prejudicially affect the constitutionally protected denominational aspects of the schools or the non-denominational aspects necessary to give effect to denominational guarantees.

The appellant bank issued an irrevocable letter of credit in favour of a foreign supplier at the request of the respondent.

The respondent alleged that the supplier fraudulently inflated prices and that the documents accompanying the draft did not strictly comply with the letter of credit.

The Supreme Court of Canada recognized the fraud exception to the autonomy of documentary credits, extending it to fraud in the underlying transaction, provided the fraud is clearly established to the bank's knowledge before payment.

However, the Court found the bank lacked sufficient knowledge of the fraud.

Nevertheless, the Court held the bank improperly paid the draft because the bills of lading failed to strictly comply with the prepaid freight requirement of the letter of credit.

The appeal was dismissed.