Elaine Atkinson

The appellant challenged a finding of incapacity to manage property on the basis that repeated defects in the psychiatric facility's leave of absence procedure meant he was no longer a patient under the Mental Health Act.

The court held that the appeal was not moot despite the later discharge and issuance of a notice of continuance, because the validity of the continuance depended on the validity of the underlying certificate.

Interpreting the statutory definition of patient flexibly and purposively, the court concluded that the procedural irregularities in granting leaves of absence did not amount to a discharge in fact or law.

The original certificate of incapacity therefore remained valid, and the appeal was dismissed without costs.

The respondent, a police officer, was forced to retire at age 60 pursuant to a mandatory retirement policy in the collective agreement.

He filed a human rights complaint alleging age discrimination.

The Board of Inquiry found the policy was not a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) because the employer lacked a sincerely held belief in its necessity at the time of adoption, and because individual accommodation was possible.

The Divisional Court and Court of Appeal upheld this decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the subjective element of the BFOR test can be satisfied where a policy is adopted in good faith through collective bargaining without ulterior motives.

The Court also held that the objective element does not require individual accommodation where a general rule is reasonably necessary and individual testing is impractical.

The mandatory retirement policy was justified as a BFOR.

The appellant municipality sought restitution from the federal and provincial governments for monies paid to support juvenile delinquents placed in group homes under an ultra vires provision of the Juvenile Delinquents Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that the municipality failed to establish that its payments conferred an 'incontrovertible benefit' on either level of government.

Neither government was under a legal obligation to pay for the juveniles' care, and the payments did not discharge a liability or save them an inevitable expense.