Duff Friesen

These consolidated appeals concerned the constitutionality of a federal statutory prohibition on partisan political work by public servants.

The Court held that legislation implementing a constitutional convention of public service neutrality remains ordinary legislation and is subject to Charter review.

The impugned provision infringed freedom of expression under s. 2(b), was sufficiently precise to be a limit prescribed by law, but failed the s. 1 proportionality analysis because it applied overbroadly to all public servants regardless of role or level.

The Court declined to preserve the provision through case-by-case reading down and left standing the declaration that the impugned provision was of no force or effect except as it applied to deputy heads.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal regarding an inmate disciplinary court matter.

The Supreme Court of Canada quashed the appeal, finding that the issue had become moot due to three factors, two of which arose after leave to appeal was granted.

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 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, a correctional officer, was denied eligibility for promotion because a Parliamentary Subcommittee report named him as the instigator of a prison riot, resulting in notoriety.

The Selection Board excluded him based on a restriction imposed by the Commissioner of Penitentiaries.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that 'merit' under s. 10 of the Public Service Employment Act refers only to intrinsic characteristics, and the Selection Board should not have considered the unproven allegations.

The Court ruled that the Appeal Board, under s. 21, had a statutory duty to inquire into the truth of the Subcommittee's findings.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Appeal Board.

The appellants challenged the validity of a 1908 surrender of Indian reserve lands by the Enoch Band.

At the surrender meeting, a majority of the eligible male members were present, and a majority of those present voted in favour of the surrender, but the assenting members did not constitute an absolute majority of all eligible male members of the band.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that under section 49(1) of the Indian Act, a valid surrender requires only that a majority of eligible members attend the meeting, and that a majority of those present assent to the surrender.

The appeal was dismissed.