Blenus Wright

The appellant, an Ontario lawyer, sought a declaration that certain Rules of Civil Procedure permitting the assessment of costs against solicitors personally were unconstitutional.

The application was brought without any supporting affidavit or factual allegations.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that a Charter challenge based on the alleged unconstitutional effects of legislation cannot proceed in a factual vacuum.

The appeal was dismissed because the application lacked the necessary adjudicative and legislative facts to support the constitutional challenge.

The appellants appealed a decision regarding the delegation of federal powers to a provincial minister to set fishing quotas.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, substantially adopting the reasons of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The Court clarified that while provinces cannot regulate commercial fishing through general legislation, they do have jurisdiction to regulate provincially-owned fisheries as an aspect of administering public property, subject to overriding federal legislation.

The appellants, a union and individual provincial civil servants, challenged the constitutionality of provisions in the Ontario Public Service Act that prohibited them from engaging in certain political activities, including during federal elections.

They argued the province lacked jurisdiction to legislate regarding federal elections.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the impugned provisions were intra vires the province.

The Court found the legislation was validly enacted under the province's power to amend its constitution and regulate the tenure of provincial offices, as it aimed to ensure the political impartiality of the provincial public service, a fundamental principle of responsible government.

Appeal from an Ontario reference concerning the constitutional validity of legislation extending full public funding to Roman Catholic separate high schools.

The Supreme Court held the legislation was valid under the province's plenary education power in s. 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, read with s. 93(3), and that the Confederation compromise respecting denominational schools could not be overridden by Charter equality or religious-freedom guarantees.

A majority also concluded the legislation could be sustained as restoring rights protected by s. 93(1).

The appeal was dismissed, the reference question was answered in the negative, and no costs were awarded.