Dominique A. Jobin

A lawyer challenged a disciplinary reprimand imposed after a private letter to a judge containing abusive personal attacks.

The appeal required the court to determine the proper review framework where discretionary administrative decisions engage Charter expression values.

The court held that judicial review proceeds on reasonableness, with proportional balancing of Charter values and statutory objectives, rather than a full Oakes section 1 analysis.

Applying that framework, the reprimand reflected a proportionate balance between expressive freedom and professional civility obligations.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The CBC appealed a decision dismissing its motion to broadcast a video recording of a statement made by the accused to the police, which was tendered as an exhibit at trial.

The trial judge had held that the Rules of Practice of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, Criminal Division prohibited broadcasting the recording.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the rules prohibit broadcasting recordings of proceedings, not exhibits.

Access to exhibits is governed by the open court principle, and trial judges must apply the Dagenais/Mentuck test to determine if broadcasting should be limited.

The appeal was dismissed as moot because the accused had been acquitted.

The media organizations challenged rules and a directive that limited filming, taking photographs, and conducting interviews to predetermined locations in courthouses, and prohibited the broadcasting of official audio recordings of hearings.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while these activities are protected by s. 2(b) of the Charter and the measures infringe freedom of expression, the limits are reasonable and justified under s. 1.

The measures advance the pressing and substantial objective of maintaining the fair administration of justice by ensuring the serenity of hearings, protecting the privacy of litigants, and reducing stress on witnesses.

The Quebec legislature amended the Charter of the French language to disregard periods of attendance at unsubsidized English-language private schools and instruction received pursuant to special authorizations when determining eligibility for publicly funded English-language instruction.

The respondents challenged these amendments.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that paragraphs 2 and 3 of s. 73 of the Charter of the French language infringe the minority language educational rights guaranteed by s. 23(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court found that the absolute prohibition on considering such instruction creates a fictitious educational pathway, preventing the required global qualitative assessment.

The infringement was not justified under s. 1 of the Charter, as the measures were not minimally impairing.

The appeals and cross-appeals were dismissed, and the provisions were declared unconstitutional, with the declaration suspended for one year.

The appellants challenged the validity of provisions in Quebec's Health Insurance Act and Hospital Insurance Act that prohibit residents from purchasing private health insurance for services covered by the public health care plan.

They argued that waiting times in the public system deprived them of access to timely care, violating their rights under the Quebec Charter and the Canadian Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal.

A majority found that the prohibition violates the right to life and personal inviolability under s. 1 of the Quebec Charter and is not justified under s. 9.1.

Three of the judges also found that the prohibition violates s. 7 of the Canadian Charter because it arbitrarily deprives individuals of life and security of the person by forcing them to endure unreasonable waiting times without the option of seeking private care.

The appellants, members of the French language majority in Quebec, sought access to publicly funded English language instruction for their children.

They argued that section 73 of the Charter of the French language, which restricts access to English schools to the English language minority, violates the equality rights guaranteed by the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that equality guarantees cannot be used to invalidate or modify the special status and comprehensive code for minority language education rights established by section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The appellant challenged the denial of a certificate of eligibility for her children to attend English-language public schools in Quebec.

The denial was based on the children not having completed the 'major part' of their instruction in English as required by s. 73(2) of the Charter of the French language.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 73(2) is constitutional if interpreted to require a qualitative, rather than strictly quantitative, assessment of the child's educational experience to determine genuine commitment to a minority language education.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the appellant's children were found eligible for English education.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal which had reversed a trial judgment finding the respondents liable for copyright infringement of scratch cards.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the trial judgment, holding that the trial judge correctly stated and applied the criteria for infringement.

The Court of Appeal erred by adding a requirement that the infringing work must be a simple copy of the original.