Dominique Rousseau

The Attorney General of Quebec appealed a decision dismissing its claim that the federal government was required to share in the costs of social services provided in schools and support services provided to persons with disabilities under the Canada Assistance Plan.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that social services in schools were not 'welfare services' because their primary object was to support the educational mission of schools, not to fight poverty.

Furthermore, the Court held that the federal government was already sharing the costs of support services for persons with disabilities requiring continuous assistance under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977, which triggered the residual exception in the Canada Assistance Plan.

The government of Quebec submitted questions concerning the constitutional validity of ss. 22 and 23 of the Employment Insurance Act to the Court of Appeal, arguing they encroached on provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights.

The Court of Appeal found the provisions unconstitutional.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the provisions relating to maternity and parental benefits are a valid exercise of Parliament's jurisdiction over unemployment insurance under s. 91(2A) of the Constitution Act, 1867, as their pith and substance is the replacement of employment income during an interruption of work.

The appellant, Imperial Oil, formerly operated a petroleum depot on a site that was later sold and developed for residential use.

When hydrocarbon contamination was discovered, the present owners sued the developers, the city, and the Minister of the Environment.

The Minister subsequently ordered Imperial Oil to prepare a site characterization study at its own expense under the polluter-pay principle.

Imperial Oil challenged the order, arguing the Minister was in a conflict of interest and breached the duty of impartiality because he was a defendant in the civil suits.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Minister was exercising a discretionary, political power to protect the public interest, not an adjudicative function, and therefore the strict judicial standard of impartiality did not apply.