Dickson C.J.

The appellant, a cleaner at a military base, was sexually harassed by her supervisor.

She filed a complaint against the supervisor and her employer under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Act contemplates the imposition of liability on employers for all acts of their employees in the course of employment.

The Court reasoned that the Act is remedial, not punitive, and its objectives would be stultified if remedies were not available against the employer, who alone can provide a healthy work environment.

The appellants, a union and individual provincial civil servants, challenged the constitutionality of provisions in the Ontario Public Service Act that prohibited them from engaging in certain political activities, including during federal elections.

They argued the province lacked jurisdiction to legislate regarding federal elections.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the impugned provisions were intra vires the province.

The Court found the legislation was validly enacted under the province's power to amend its constitution and regulate the tenure of provincial offices, as it aimed to ensure the political impartiality of the provincial public service, a fundamental principle of responsible government.

The appellants were acquitted at trial on a directed verdict of robbery and using a firearm.

The Ontario Court of Appeal quashed the acquittal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge erred in ruling confessions inadmissible based on language comprehension, which goes to weight rather than admissibility.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, substantially agreeing with the reasons of the Court of Appeal.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission and Action Travail des Femmes appealed a Federal Court of Appeal decision that set aside a portion of a Human Rights Tribunal order.

The Tribunal had found that the employer engaged in systemic discrimination against women in blue-collar jobs and ordered an employment equity program, including a requirement that the employer hire one woman for every four non-traditional jobs until women constituted 13% of that workforce.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal had jurisdiction under s. 41(2)(a) of the Canadian Human Rights Act to order an employment equity program to prevent future systemic discrimination.

Following unsuccessful contract talks, dairy workers served strike notices and employers responded with lock-out notices.

The Saskatchewan legislature enacted back-to-work legislation temporarily prohibiting strikes and lock-outs and imposing compulsory arbitration.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the legislation infringed the workers' freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter by prohibiting strikes, the infringement was justified under s. 1 due to the severe economic harm a work stoppage would cause to dairy farmers.

The Restrictive Trade Practices Commission ordered several persons to appear before a Hearing Officer to give evidence in an inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act.

The Hearing Officer made rulings limiting the role of counsel, including denying the right to cross-examine witnesses, excluding a potential witness, and ruling that the Director need not disclose his reasons for commencing the inquiry.

The appellants sought to quash these rulings.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the inquiry was purely investigatory and that neither the Act nor the common law doctrine of fairness required the Director to disclose his reasons or permitted counsel to cross-examine witnesses at this preliminary stage.

The trustees of the respondent trust elected to make discretionary capital allocations to its beneficiary.

Instead of liquidating capital assets, the trustees retained the investments and financed the allocations by borrowing funds from a bank.

The trust deducted the interest on the borrowed money.

The Minister disallowed the deductions.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the interest deduction requires tracing the use of borrowed funds to a specific eligible use.

Borrowing money for an ineligible direct purpose (capital allocation) does not entitle a taxpayer to deduct interest payments, even if it indirectly preserves income-earning property.

The appeal was allowed.

The appellant sought a declaration of possessory title over disputed land used as a parking area for twenty years.

The land had been continuously leased during that period except for the last eight years.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the Ontario Court of Appeal that the limitation period against the owner commenced only when the tenancies terminated.

The appeal was dismissed, and the respondents' claim to recover possession was not barred by the Limitations Act.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder, arguing that the trial judge misdirected himself on the burden of proof, failed to warn himself about the risks of accepting accomplice evidence, and disregarded relevant evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a 4-3 split decision, dismissed the appeal, with the majority substantially agreeing with the majority decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

The respondent, a person in need receiving provincial social allowance, sought a declaration and injunction against federal cost-sharing payments to Manitoba under the Canada Assistance Plan, alleging provincial non-compliance with the Plan's conditions.

The appellants moved to strike the statement of claim for lack of standing and failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the respondent lacked a direct personal interest, he should be granted public interest standing to challenge the statutory authority for the federal payments.

The Court extended the public interest standing principles from constitutional cases to non-constitutional challenges of administrative action.

The appeal was dismissed, allowing the action to proceed.

The appellant union, involved in a labour dispute with Purolator, threatened to picket the respondent, a third-party courier company doing business with a company connected to Purolator.

The respondent obtained an interlocutory injunction based on the common law tort of inducing breach of contract.

The union appealed, arguing the injunction violated its freedom of expression under the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that while picketing is a form of expression, the Charter does not apply to private litigation between private parties relying solely on the common law.

The Court further noted that even if the Charter applied, the injunction against secondary picketing would be a reasonable limit under section 1.

The accused stabbed a pregnant woman, causing the premature birth and subsequent death of her child.

The accused was convicted of causing bodily harm to the mother and was subsequently charged with manslaughter of the child.

The trial judge denied a motion to stay the manslaughter charge based on the Kienapple principle.

The Court of Appeal granted certiorari and quashed the indictment.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the Kienapple principle does not apply because the offences contain distinct elements and relate to different victims.

The appellant was prevented from crossing a picket line at his workplace due to threats of violence from striking members of another union.

He applied for unemployment insurance benefits but was initially denied.

The Board of Referees and the Umpire allowed his appeal, finding he did not participate in the labour dispute.

The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the Umpire's decision, finding the issue of whether members of his grade or class participated had not been addressed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the evidence established neither the appellant nor members of his union participated in the dispute, as they were prevented from working by genuine fear of violence.

The mother of a mentally retarded adult daughter applied for court authorization to consent to her daughter's sterilization for non-therapeutic purposes.

The trial judge denied the application, but the Appeal Division allowed it, authorizing a hysterectomy under the court's parens patriae jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the parens patriae jurisdiction cannot be used to authorize the non-therapeutic sterilization of a mentally incompetent person, as it can never be safely determined that such a procedure is for their benefit.

The appellant trust company retained the respondent solicitors to perform legal services for a mortgage transaction.

The mortgage was later declared void under the Nova Scotia Companies Act because it constituted unlawful financial assistance for the purchase of the company's shares.

The appellant sued the respondents for negligence.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that a solicitor can be concurrently liable to a client in tort and contract.

The respondents were found negligent for failing to identify the statutory prohibition and warn the appellant.

The Court also applied the discoverability rule to the limitation period, holding that the tort action was not statute-barred because the cause of action did not arise until the appellant discovered or ought to have discovered the negligence.

The appellant Commission claimed $67,014.99 from the respondent transit commission, representing the difference between wages paid to the respondent's employees under a collective agreement and the amounts required by the Construction Decree for renovation work done on the respondent's buildings.

The lower courts dismissed the claim, holding that the Construction Industry Labour Relations Act did not apply to mass transit employers and that the employees received a 'total wage' greater than the Decree's requirements.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the Act's application depends on the nature of the work done (construction) rather than the employer's primary industry.

The Court also rejected the 'total wage' concept, ruling that the Decree is a matter of public order and its specific minimum conditions cannot be offset by other benefits provided in a collective agreement.

The respondent, a Quebec Superior Court judge, challenged the constitutional validity of s. 29.1 of the Judges Act, which required judges appointed after February 16, 1975, to contribute a higher percentage of their salary toward their pensions than those appointed before that date.

The respondent argued this violated the principle of judicial independence under s. 100 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and the right to equality before the law under s. 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the contributory pension scheme did not interfere with judicial independence, as it merely treated judges in accordance with standard pension schemes and did not diminish their overall financial position.

The Court also found no violation of the Canadian Bill of Rights, concluding that the legislation pursued a valid federal objective and the cut-off date chosen by Parliament was not discriminatory.

The appellant was charged with conspiracy to import cocaine.

At trial, wiretap evidence was excluded because the police failed to disclose to the authorizing judge that a concurrent income tax investigation was ongoing and that information would be shared with tax authorities.

The trial judge acquitted the appellant, but the Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the existence of the tax investigation was irrelevant to the validity of the wiretap authorizations for the drug investigation.

The accused was charged with rape.

The only issue at trial was the identification of the accused by the complainant.

The trial judge directed a verdict of acquittal, finding the identification evidence unreliable due to difficult observation conditions and improper police identification procedures.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the accused's appeal, holding that a trial judge cannot withdraw a case from the jury where there is admissible evidence which could, if believed, result in a conviction.

The frailties of the identification evidence should have been left to the jury with a proper caution.

The appellants appealed a decision denying them deferred benefits under a multi-employer pension plan established by an international union, after a new plan was established for members of the local union.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower courts that the benefits under the original plan had not yet vested and that the respondents had complied with the requirements of the plan.

The Court noted that neither the federal nor provincial pension legislation was designed to deal with the specific circumstances of the case.