André Joli-Coeur

The Court dismissed an appeal about renewal and term clauses in a Quebec affiliation contract between a banner company and member pharmacists.

The majority held the renewal clause granted unilateral renewal control to the member pharmacists and could lawfully produce potentially perpetual effects.

The Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge’s interpretation and held the contract was not indeterminate on the majority’s analysis.

Dissenting judges would have characterized the contract as indeterminate and allowed termination on reasonable notice.

The Governor in Council referred three questions to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the legality of a unilateral secession by Quebec.

The Court held that under the Constitution, unilateral secession is illegal.

However, the democratic principle dictates that a clear majority vote on a clear question in favour of secession would create a constitutional obligation on the rest of Canada to negotiate the terms of secession.

Under international law, the right to self-determination does not grant a right to unilateral secession to a constituent part of a democratic state that respects human rights and provides access to government.

Therefore, there is no conflict between domestic and international law.

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 respondent, a casual employee of the Quebec government, claimed $168 for vacation, holidays, and sick leave in the Provincial Court, Small Claims Division.

The Provincial Court allowed the claim.

The appellant sought a writ of evocation, arguing the Provincial Court lacked jurisdiction because the employment relationship was statutory, not contractual, and alternatively, that the claim was a grievance subject to arbitration under a collective agreement.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the employment relationship was contractual and the collective agreement did not apply to casual employees.

Therefore, the Provincial Court had jurisdiction to hear the claim.