Brian Anthony Crane

The Public Service Alliance of Canada sought certification as the bargaining agent for Canadian civilian employees working at a United States naval base in Newfoundland.

The United States claimed sovereign immunity from the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Relations Board.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the bare contracts of employment had commercial aspects, the certification proceedings and the imposition of a collective bargaining regime would unacceptably interfere with the sovereign management and operation of the military base.

The Court concluded that the proceedings did not relate to a commercial activity within the meaning of the State Immunity Act, and therefore the United States was entitled to state immunity.

The appellants appealed judgments declaring unconstitutional a hospital regulation requiring medical staff retirement at age 65 unless an exception was granted.

The principal issue was whether the hospital, in adopting and administering the regulation, was subject to the Charter under s. 32.

The majority held the hospital was not part of government and its internal management regulation therefore fell outside the Charter's ambit.

Assuming the Charter applied, the majority further held the regulation and its application were discriminatory under s. 15(1) but justified under s. 1 because they were rationally connected to maintaining excellence in a major acute care teaching hospital and minimally impairing in a resource-allocation context.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal regarding an inmate disciplinary court matter.

The Supreme Court of Canada quashed the appeal, finding that the issue had become moot due to three factors, two of which arose after leave to appeal was granted.

A motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from a decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was charged under s. 33(2) of the Fisheries Act after spilling 3,000 gallons of diesel fuel into tidal waters.

The appellant sought an order of prohibition, arguing that s. 33(2) was ultra vires the federal Parliament as it related to general water pollution rather than fisheries, and that the information was multiplicitous.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 33(2) is intra vires as its true nature and character is the protection and preservation of fisheries, a valid exercise of federal power under s. 91(12) of the B.N.A. Act.

The Court also found the information was not multiplicitous, as the accused was not prejudiced in preparing a defence.

The appeal was dismissed.