Benoît Belleau

This appeal considered whether a municipal notice of reserve that blocked construction at a federally approved antenna site was constitutionally valid.

The majority held the notice’s pith and substance was the siting of radiocommunication infrastructure, an exclusive federal matter, making it ultra vires.

The Court also held the measure significantly impaired the federal core protected by interjurisdictional immunity.

The appeal was allowed and the notice was unconstitutional and inapplicable to the appellant.

The Supreme Court considered whether provisions of the Civil Code of Quebec limiting family patrimony, compensatory allowance, partnership of acquests, and spousal support to married and civil union spouses infringed s. 15(1) of the Charter by excluding de facto spouses.

A 5-4 majority on s. 15(1) found the exclusion violated equality rights based on marital status.

However, the Chief Justice found the infringement justified under s. 1, joining the four judges who found no s. 15(1) violation, resulting in a 5-4 decision upholding the constitutionality of the impugned provisions.

The dissent would have struck down some or all of the provisions as unjustified discrimination against de facto spouses.

The Quebec legislature amended the Charter of the French language to disregard periods of attendance at unsubsidized English-language private schools and instruction received pursuant to special authorizations when determining eligibility for publicly funded English-language instruction.

The respondents challenged these amendments.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that paragraphs 2 and 3 of s. 73 of the Charter of the French language infringe the minority language educational rights guaranteed by s. 23(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court found that the absolute prohibition on considering such instruction creates a fictitious educational pathway, preventing the required global qualitative assessment.

The infringement was not justified under s. 1 of the Charter, as the measures were not minimally impairing.

The appeals and cross-appeals were dismissed, and the provisions were declared unconstitutional, with the declaration suspended for one year.

The syndic of the Ordre des pharmaciens began an inquiry into allegations that generic drug manufacturers were providing illegal kickbacks to pharmacists.

The syndic requested documents from a manufacturer under s. 122 of the Professional Code.

The manufacturer refused, arguing the provision only applied to professionals.

The syndic sought and obtained a general law injunction to compel disclosure.

The Court of Appeal reversed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that s. 122 applies to third parties and that a general law injunction is available to enforce the syndic's investigatory powers despite the existence of specific penal remedies in the Code.

The appellant parents sought access to public instruction in English in Quebec for their children pursuant to s. 73 of the Charter of the French language.

They attempted to bypass the administrative appeal process by seeking injunctive and declaratory relief directly in the Superior Court.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Administrative Tribunal of Québec (ATQ) has exclusive jurisdiction to hear appeals regarding entitlement to minority language education and possesses the authority to decide incidental constitutional questions.

Consequently, the appellants could not bypass the administrative process, and the appeals were dismissed.

The appellants, members of the French language majority in Quebec, sought access to publicly funded English language instruction for their children.

They argued that section 73 of the Charter of the French language, which restricts access to English schools to the English language minority, violates the equality rights guaranteed by the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that equality guarantees cannot be used to invalidate or modify the special status and comprehensive code for minority language education rights established by section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The appellant challenged the denial of a certificate of eligibility for her children to attend English-language public schools in Quebec.

The denial was based on the children not having completed the 'major part' of their instruction in English as required by s. 73(2) of the Charter of the French language.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 73(2) is constitutional if interpreted to require a qualitative, rather than strictly quantitative, assessment of the child's educational experience to determine genuine commitment to a minority language education.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the appellant's children were found eligible for English education.

The appellants, contractors and construction workers, were charged with hiring employees without required competency certificates or working without them, contrary to the Quebec Construction Act.

They challenged the constitutionality of the Act, arguing that the requirement to join one of five designated union groups to obtain a competency certificate violated their freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter, specifically the negative right not to associate.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

A majority held that while s. 2(d) includes a negative right not to associate, the legislation did not infringe this right as it did not impose ideological conformity, or alternatively, any infringement was justified under s. 1 of the Charter given the complex history of labour relations in the Quebec construction industry.

The appellant municipality contracted out garbage collection to subcontractors.

The union filed motions under s. 45 of the Labour Code to have the certification and collective agreement transferred to the subcontractors.

The labour commissioner and Labour Court granted the motions, finding a partial transfer of the operation of the undertaking.

The Superior Court quashed the decision, but the Court of Appeal restored it.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Labour Court's decision was not patently unreasonable and that s. 45 could apply to subcontracting where the transferee receives a right to operate part of the transferor's undertaking with sufficient autonomy.

Ivanhoe contracted out its janitorial services to Moderne, and the union's certification and collective agreement were transferred to Moderne.

When the contract expired, Ivanhoe engaged four new contractors, and Moderne dismissed its employees.

The union applied to transfer the certification to the new contractors, while Ivanhoe applied to cancel the certification.

The labour commissioner and Labour Court transferred the certification but not the collective agreement to the new contractors, and dismissed Ivanhoe's petition for cancellation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the standard of review is patent unreasonableness.

The Court found that the Labour Court's application of the organic definition of an undertaking and the theory of retrocession to find a legal relationship between successive employers was not patently unreasonable.

The refusal to transfer the collective agreement and the dismissal of the cancellation petition were also upheld.

The appellant, a judge of the Court of Québec, had a criminal record from 1971 for assisting members of the FLQ, for which he received a pardon in 1987.

When applying for judicial office, he failed to disclose his criminal record and pardon to the selection committee.

After his appointment, the Minister of Justice learned of his past and lodged a complaint.

The Conseil de la magistrature recommended his removal, and the Court of Appeal subsequently issued a report recommending revocation of his commission.

The Supreme Court of Canada held it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, upheld the constitutionality of the removal process, found no breach of procedural fairness or equality rights, and affirmed that the pardon did not allow the appellant to deny his past.

The Court concluded that the appellant's lack of candour undermined public confidence, justifying his removal.

The appellant challenged the constitutional validity of provisions in Quebec's Referendum Act that limited spending by independent individuals and groups during a referendum campaign.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the provisions infringed the freedoms of expression and association guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

While the objective of ensuring fairness and equality in the referendum process was pressing and substantial, the strict limits on independent spending failed the minimal impairment test.

The Court found that the exceptions for unregulated expenses were too restrictive and amounted to a near-total ban on independent political expression.

The impugned provisions were declared of no force or effect.

The appellants challenged judgments that had found constitutional defects in the institutional structure of a liquor licensing tribunal after it revoked the respondent's liquor permits for disturbance of public tranquility.

The majority held that the permit cancellation process was quasi-judicial and attracted the protections of s. 23 of Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, but concluded the defect lay in the tribunal's operations rather than in the enabling legislation itself.

The court found a reasonable apprehension of institutional bias because the tribunal's lawyers and directors could participate at multiple stages from investigation and file preparation to advocacy and adjudication without sufficient separation of functions.

Although the tribunal's security of tenure and institutional independence were adequate, its failure to ensure impartiality required the impugned revocation decision to be quashed.

The appeal was allowed only to the extent that no statutory invalidity declaration was necessary, while the respondent retained the remedy setting aside the tribunal's decision.

The appellant, a qualified plasterer, was charged with working in the construction industry without a classification certificate contrary to Regulation No. 5.

He argued the regulation was ultra vires and adversely affected his vested rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, upholding the Court of Appeal's finding that the regulation was valid and that the vested rights argument failed given the statutory duty imposed on the Office de la construction du Québec to adopt hiring standards.