David Sgayias

The respondents, staff lawyers with the federal Department of Justice, sued the federal Crown for breach of contract regarding salary disparities.

During discovery, the government claimed Cabinet confidentiality over certain documents under s. 39 of the Canada Evidence Act, including some previously listed as producible.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 39 provides absolute protection once information is validly certified by the Clerk of the Privy Council, and the common law concept of waiver does not apply.

The Court also upheld the constitutionality of s. 39, finding it does not impermissibly infringe on the core jurisdiction of superior courts or unwritten constitutional principles.

The appellant, an inmate at a federal penitentiary, was seriously injured while working on a prison farm.

He subsequently qualified for and received Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability benefits.

He sued the Crown in tort for his injuries.

The Crown moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was barred by s. 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, which precludes proceedings against the Crown if a pension or compensation has been paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund 'in respect of' the injury.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 9 does not bar the action.

The Court reasoned that CPP disability benefits are contingent on a contributor's disabled status and adequate contributions, not on the specific event of death, injury, damage, or loss.

Therefore, the benefits were not paid 'in respect of' the injury within the meaning of s. 9.

The respondent leased a building to the federal government.

When the lease was expiring, the parties engaged in negotiations for a renewal but failed to reach an agreement.

The government then issued a call for tenders, which the respondent bid on but lost to a competitor.

The respondent sued in tort, alleging negligence in the conduct of the negotiations and in the preparation and evaluation of the tender.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the tort of negligence does not extend to pure economic loss arising from commercial negotiations, citing policy reasons against imposing a duty of care in arm's-length bargaining.

The Court also found no liability in the tendering process, concluding that while an implied contractual duty to treat all bidders fairly exists, the minor breach in this case did not cause the respondent's loss.