Dickson C.J.

The appellant husband appealed an order granting the respondent wife exclusive lifetime possession of the matrimonial home under the Family Law Reform Act, arguing it was invalid or inoperative due to paramountcy when joined with a maintenance order under the Divorce Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that an order for exclusive possession is not a support order, and the provisions of the two statutes are not mutually exclusive.

The Court found no conflict between the federal and provincial legislation, as they confer independent jurisdictions in relation to different subject matters that complement each other.

The Governor in Council referred questions to the Supreme Court regarding the validity of Manitoba's unilingual legislation under s. 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870.

The Court held that the requirement to enact, print, and publish laws in both English and French is mandatory, rendering all unilingual Acts of the Manitoba Legislature invalid and of no force or effect.

However, to avoid a legal vacuum and preserve the constitutional principle of the rule of law, the Court deemed the invalid current Acts temporarily valid for the minimum period necessary for their translation, re-enactment, printing, and publication.

The appellants appealed their convictions, raising issues regarding court election under s. 429.1 of the Criminal Code and the admission of similar fact evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that where an accused consents to be tried by a judge who is not a judge of the superior court of criminal jurisdiction, the Attorney General may choose trial before either a county/district court judge and jury or a supreme court judge and jury.

The Court also found no error in the trial judge's admission of similar fact evidence or the jury charge.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a judgment declaring an agreement of purchase and sale of land to be void.

The agreement provided a closing date of January 21, 1970, and expressly stated that time was of the essence.

The appellant had the right to postpone the closing date but took no steps to do so.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that any other interpretation would leave the agreement open indefinitely.

The respondents owned mineral claims located within Wells Gray Provincial Park.

The Crown refused to issue the park use permits necessary for the respondents to explore or work the claims, effectively denying them the opportunity to exploit their mineral rights.

The respondents sought compensation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the denial of the permits constituted an expropriation of the respondents' interest in the land (a profit à prendre), as it recovered the rights granted to them.

Therefore, the respondents were entitled to compensation under the Ministry of Highways and Public Works Act.

The appellant, a police officer, sought judicial review to declare his resignation invalid, alleging it was obtained through lengthy interrogation and threats to prosecute.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had a true and continuing intent to resign up to the time it was accepted by the Commissioner.

Consequently, there was no exercise of a statutory power of decision that would give rise to judicial review.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal regarding whether a trial court loses jurisdiction over an indictment when it fails to proceed at the time set for trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that reasonable procedural latitude is desirable in proceedings pursuant to indictment.

The Court concluded that there is no loss of jurisdiction when a trial court fails to proceed at the scheduled time, absent unconstitutional conduct.

The Attorney General of Quebec appealed a decision declaring provisions of the Act respecting municipal taxation unconstitutional.

The impugned provisions created a new system of school financing based on government grants, making taxation a complementary method subject to a referendum requirement for amounts exceeding a certain limit.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the provisions prejudicially affected the rights and privileges respecting denominational schools guaranteed by section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Specifically, the legislation failed to ensure proportional distribution of grants and subjected the taxing power of denominational school boards to the approval of electors outside their districts.

The appeal was dismissed and the provisions were declared ultra vires.

The appellant challenged a municipal by-law that prohibited remaining in a public place for the purposes of prostitution, arguing it was ultra vires as an invasion of federal criminal law powers.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding the case indistinguishable from Westendorp v. The Queen.

The Court set aside the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision and restored the trial judgment quashing the appellant's conviction.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal which quashed the convictions of the respondents on a charge of conspiracy to traffic in narcotics.

The issue concerned the validity of an order authorizing the interception of private communications.

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

The appellant, a prisoner, sought a mandatory injunction to permit him to vote in a federal election.

The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the Trial Division's judgment allowing the interlocutory application.

The Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the Federal Court of Appeal that the injunction should be refused.

The appellant, unrepresented by counsel, was charged in separate informations with an indictable offence and a summary conviction offence.

She elected trial by magistrate and consented to the evidence on both charges being applied to each count.

The trial judge tried both informations together and convicted the appellant on both.

The Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge was without jurisdiction to try separate informations together, following the Court's recent decision in Phillips and Phillips v. The Queen.

The convictions were quashed and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal that allowed the Crown's appeal from his acquittal on a charge of conspiracy to traffic in narcotics and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal's reasons that the trial judge erred in failing to consider whether the Crown had established an agreement to send narcotics as disclosed in the particulars.