Claude Tellier

The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal.

The delay was due to settlement negotiations, a series of events, and the applicant's condition.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the applicant did not indicate an intention to appeal within the deadline.

The Supreme Court of Canada granted the extension, finding that the applicant should not be deprived of the right to seek leave solely because of the additional delay, and dismissed the respondent's application for security for costs.

The Supreme Court of Canada heard two appeals arising from a motion for a declaratory judgment filed by Hydro-Québec in the Superior Court of Quebec.

Hydro-Québec sought a declaration regarding its rights under a Power Contract with Churchill Falls, following an Order in Council by Newfoundland requiring Churchill Falls to supply it with power.

Newfoundland filed a declinatory exception, arguing the Quebec courts lacked jurisdiction over it, while Churchill Falls filed a motion to dismiss, arguing Hydro-Québec lacked sufficient interest and raising lis pendens.

The Court allowed Newfoundland's appeal, holding that the jurisdiction clause in the Power Contract did not bind Newfoundland, which was not a party to it.

The Court dismissed Churchill Falls' appeal, finding that Hydro-Québec had a real interest in resolving the genuine legal problem created by the threat to its contractual rights, and that there was no lis pendens with the proceedings in Newfoundland.

The appellant hospital appealed a decision of the Court of Appeal which dismissed a motion for a writ of evocation against the Commission des affaires sociales.

The Commission had reversed the hospital's decision to limit a physician's general surgery privileges, finding the reduction was not based on the criteria in s. 92b of the Act respecting health services and social services.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Commission did not exceed its jurisdiction and its interpretation of the statute was not patently unreasonable.