Deschamps J.

The appellants, who suffered from chronic pain attributable to work-related injuries, challenged the constitutionality of provisions in the Nova Scotia Workers' Compensation Act and related regulations that excluded chronic pain from the regular workers' compensation system.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the constitutional validity of its enabling statute.

The Court further held that the blanket exclusion of chronic pain sufferers from the general compensation scheme violated section 15(1) of the Charter by imposing discriminatory differential treatment based on physical disability.

The infringement was not justified under section 1 of the Charter, as it did not minimally impair the rights of the affected workers.

The respondent was sexually assaulted by her foster father while in the care of the provincial government.

She sued the Crown for vicarious liability and breach of non-delegable duty.

The Supreme Court of Canada, applying its companion decision in K.L.B. v. British Columbia, held that the Crown was not vicariously liable for the torts of foster parents and did not owe a non-delegable duty to ensure no harm came to foster children.

The Court also held that social assistance benefits received by the respondent must be deducted from her damage award for past loss of earning capacity to avoid double recovery, and that prejudgment interest on such an award should be calculated incrementally.

The appellant, a taxi driver, repeatedly solicited fares at Pearson International Airport without a permit, contrary to regulations and notices under the Trespass to Property Act.

An airport inspector attempted to arrest the appellant for trespassing under s. 9 of the Act.

The appellant resisted, shoving his car door into the inspector and fleeing.

The trial judge acquitted the appellant of assault with intent to resist arrest, finding the inspector had no authority to use reasonable force.

The Court of Appeal substituted a conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the power of arrest under the Trespass to Property Act implicitly includes the authority to use reasonable force to effect and maintain the arrest.

The appellant challenged the constitutionality of the Canada Elections Act requirement that a political party must nominate candidates in at least 50 electoral districts to obtain registered party status and its associated benefits.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the 50-candidate threshold violates the right to meaningful participation in the electoral process guaranteed by section 3 of the Charter.

The Court found that the threshold diminishes the capacity of marginal or regional parties to communicate their ideas, thereby undermining the right of citizens to play a meaningful role in the electoral process.

The infringement was not justified under section 1 of the Charter, and the relevant provisions were declared unconstitutional.

The respondent, who suffers from bipolar disorder, refused proposed medical treatment.

The attending physician found him incapable of making this decision, and the Consent and Capacity Board confirmed this finding.

On judicial review, the Superior Court of Justice overturned the Board's decision, finding it unreasonable and based on a misapplication of the statutory test for capacity.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's finding of incapacity was unreasonable because it conflated the respondent's best interests with his capacity to decide, and failed to recognize that the respondent understood his condition and the consequences of refusing treatment.

The insured, a physician with a history of opiate addiction, died from an intravenous injection of Demerol.

His life insurance policy provided coverage for death effected through 'accidental means'.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the self-injection was a deliberate act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that 'accidental means' does not refer to a narrower subclass of 'accidental deaths'.

Both phrases connote a death that was unexpected.

The Court found that the insured did not expect to die but made a miscalculation regarding the dosage.

The appeal was dismissed, and the beneficiary was entitled to the accidental death benefit.

The taxpayer failed to pay federal and provincial taxes for the 1980 to 1985 taxation years.

Revenue Canada assessed the taxpayer in 1986 but took no collection action until 1998.

The Crown appealed a decision holding that it was statute-barred from collecting the tax debts.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the six-year limitation period prescribed by section 32 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act applies to the statutory collection procedures under the Income Tax Act.

The Court also held that the provincial tax debt was barred by the six-year limitation period under the British Columbia Limitation Act.