Catherine A. Lawrence

The appellant challenged the constitutional validity of s. 12 of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, which bars committee members from invoking parliamentary privilege in proceedings arising from prohibited disclosures of protected information.

The majority held that s. 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867 authorizes Parliament not only to supplement but also to limit parliamentary privilege, subject to constraints derived from constitutional text, purpose, and structure.

It concluded that s. 12 imposed only a narrow limitation connected to national security oversight and did not fundamentally undermine Parliament’s role or effect an amendment requiring Part V procedures under the Constitution Act, 1982.

The appeal was dismissed, with a dissent concluding the provision unconstitutionally delegated control over parliamentary speech to the executive and enforcement to the courts.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld decisions finding that complaints challenging Indian Act registration provisions were bare attacks on legislation, not discrimination in the provision of services under s. 5 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Tribunal’s dismissal was upheld because legislation itself is not a service under that provision.

The Court allowed the appeal in part in a labour grievance over mandatory after-hour standby duties for federal immigration lawyers.

The majority held the adjudicator reasonably found the directive was not a fair and reasonable exercise of management rights under the collective agreement, so that portion of the adjudicator’s order was restored.

However, the Court agreed the directive did not infringe section 7 liberty interests, because the impacts on personal time did not engage fundamental personal choices protected by the Charter.

The appellants challenged the legality of the Federal Child Support Guidelines through judicial review in the Federal Court.

The Supreme Court held that provincial superior courts can address the validity of the Guidelines when necessary in proceedings properly before them, and that the Federal Court reasonably exercised its discretion to decline judicial review because that route was not appropriate in the circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed, with concurring reasons cautioning against treating the case as a definitive ruling on exclusive federal jurisdiction to invalidate all federal regulations on administrative grounds.

The plaintiffs brought an action for damages for personal injuries allegedly suffered on a Canadian Forces base.

The defendants successfully moved for summary judgment on the basis that the action was statute-barred by the six-month limitation period in s. 269(1) of the National Defence Act.

The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the discoverability principle applied because the injured plaintiff had received erroneous advice from the Canadian Forces and his Pensions Advocate that he could not sue while his military pension claim was pending.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the uncontradicted evidence of this erroneous advice raised a genuine issue for trial regarding the commencement of the limitation period.