Donald J. Rennie

The appellants, representative plaintiffs in two class actions, challenged the constitutionality of provisions in the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act that reduced the supplementary death benefit payable to surviving spouses based on the age of the deceased plan member.

They argued this constituted age discrimination under s. 15(1) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the reduction provisions did not violate s. 15(1).

The Court clarified that a formalistic 'mirror comparator group' approach is not required for a s. 15(1) analysis.

Instead, a substantive equality approach must be taken, considering the full context of the legislative scheme.

Viewed contextually, the benefit scheme met the actual needs of the claimants and did not perpetuate disadvantage or negative stereotypes.

The parties consented to an order fixing the costs of the appeal at $100,000, all inclusive, payable to the respondent Crown.

The appellants, representing federal public servants, RCMP, and Canadian Forces personnel, appealed the dismissal of their actions seeking the return of over $28 billion to their pension plans.

The Government had amortized and later withdrawn actuarial surpluses from the Superannuation Accounts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Superannuation Accounts were merely legislated ledgers containing no actual assets, as employee contributions were deposited into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The Court held that the Government did not owe a fiduciary duty to the plan members regarding the surplus, nor was it unjustly enriched.

Furthermore, the 2000 amendments to the governing statutes clearly authorized the Government to withdraw the actuarial surplus.

Following the allowance of the Crown's appeal, the Crown sought costs of the action against the Litigation Administrator and Litigation Guardian, solely to support a Rule 57.07 award of costs against Class Counsel personally.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the request, finding that while Class Counsel's conduct in pursuing the matter following the Supreme Court's decision was questionable, it did not constitute bad faith or the type of conduct required to found an order for costs against a solicitor personally under the test in Young v. Young.

The cost orders of the trial judge were set aside as a result of the original order allowing the appeal.

The Crown appealed a motion judge's decision awarding $4.6 billion in damages to a class of disabled veterans for the Crown's failure to invest or pay interest on administered pension funds prior to 1990.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that a previous Supreme Court of Canada decision upholding the validity of s. 5.1(4) of the Department of Veterans Affairs Act finally ended the litigation.

The Court held that s. 5.1(4) constituted a complete bar to the class's claims for damages, and that the motion judge erred in interpreting it as only a partial bar.

Furthermore, the Court found that the claims were time-barred and that the doctrine of equitable fraud did not apply to toll the limitation period.

The appellants challenged the constitutionality of the investor-state arbitration mechanism in Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), arguing it violated s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867, judicial independence, the rule of law, and the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that NAFTA tribunals do not exercise powers analogous to those of superior courts at Confederation, nor do they remove core jurisdiction from domestic courts.

The court also held that the tribunals do not violate judicial independence or the rule of law, and that the Charter challenge was premature as it was based on speculative harm rather than a specific tribunal decision.

Several trade unions brought actions challenging federal legislation that authorized the federal government to deal with surpluses in pension plans covering federal government and RCMP employees.

The Attorney General of Canada successfully moved to strike the unions as plaintiffs, arguing that s. 3(2) of the Rights of Labour Act prevented them from suing in their own names.

The Court of Appeal allowed the unions' appeal, holding that the unions have the legal status to sue in their own names derived from their governing labour legislation or corporate status, and that s. 3(2) does not bar them.

The Court also found the unions had standing due to their direct interest in their members' pension benefits.

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 respondents were charged with 32 summary conviction offences relating to breaches of the Aeronautics Act and its regulations.

Prior to plea, the respondents moved to quash the information on the basis that it lacked sufficient details to identify the transactions, contrary to s. 510(3) of the Criminal Code.

The Provincial Court judge quashed the information, and the Crown's applications for mandamus and certiorari were dismissed by the Court of Queen's Bench and the Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that an information vitiated for want of sufficient details under s. 510(3) cannot be salvaged by particulars or amendment if objected to prior to plea.

The respondent, a fisherman, was denied unemployment insurance benefits based on Regulation 85 of the Unemployment Insurance Regulations, which imposed a shorter qualifying period for fishermen than for other insured persons.

The Federal Court of Appeal held the regulation ultra vires as it conflicted with the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing that a different qualifying period was not necessary to extend unemployment insurance to fishermen and that the harsher requirement was not authorized by the Act.