François Aquin

The appellant, an orthodox Sikh student, was prohibited by his school board from wearing a kirpan to school on the basis that it violated the school's code of conduct prohibiting weapons.

The student and his father proposed an accommodation to wear the kirpan sealed inside his clothing, which the school board rejected.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the absolute prohibition infringed the student's freedom of religion under section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court found that the infringement could not be justified under section 1 of the Charter, as the absolute prohibition did not minimally impair the student's rights given the low risk of violence when the kirpan is worn under strict conditions.

The school board's decision was declared null.

The Quebec government referred questions to the Court of Appeal regarding the constitutionality of the Education Act (Bill 107), which proposed restructuring the province's school boards from a denominational basis (Catholic and Protestant) to a linguistic basis (French and English).

Various school boards and associations appealed the Court of Appeal's decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court held that the creation of linguistic school boards and the dissolution of existing denominational boards did not prejudicially affect the rights and privileges protected by s. 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, provided that the right to dissent and the existence of confessional schools in Montreal and Quebec City were maintained.

The Court upheld the legislation's mechanisms for exercising dissent, allocating property, and managing school taxes.

The respondents retained the appellant notary to conduct a title search for a property they intended to purchase.

The notary discovered that a previous hypothec on the property had been granted by someone other than the registered owner, though a subsequent default judgment on a giving in payment clause had declared the hypothecary creditor the absolute owner.

The notary advised the respondents that the title was defective because the original hypothec was void, ignoring the effect of the default judgment.

The respondents refused to close the transaction and were sued by the vendor.

They brought a recourse in warranty against the notary.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the default judgment had acquired the authority of res judicata and cured the title defect.

The Court found that the notary's failure to recognize the effect of res judicata was an unreasonable error of law that constituted a fault, even though his advice aligned with common notarial practice at the time.

The notary was held liable for the damages suffered by the respondents.

Following a collision between two Canadian National Railway trains in Quebec, an inspector from the provincial Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail initiated an investigation under the provincial Act respecting occupational health and safety.

The railway company challenged the investigation, arguing the provincial statute could not constitutionally apply to a federal undertaking.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the provincial occupational health and safety legislation, because of its preventive nature, directly regulates the working conditions and management of the undertaking.

Consequently, the investigative powers under the Act are wholly inapplicable to an interprovincial railway undertaking.

The appellant's daughter suffered permanent disablement from acute viral encephalitis after receiving a measles vaccine as part of a government-sponsored program.

The appellant sued the provincial government for damages, relying on a theory of no-fault or objective liability based on the principle that damages suffered by an individual for the benefit of the community should be borne by the community.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that Quebec civil law does not recognize no-fault liability or the theory of risk.

The Court found that the Civil Code provisions and ancient law do not support a general principle of state liability without fault for public health initiatives.

A civil servant was transferred to another detention centre and appealed the decision to the Commission de la fonction publique, alleging it was an unjustified disciplinary action.

The employer sought a writ of evocation, arguing the Commission lacked jurisdiction over administrative transfers.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Commission has jurisdiction to hear evidence to determine whether a transfer is in fact a disguised disciplinary action, as an employer cannot deprive an employee of their right of appeal by labelling a disciplinary measure as an administrative transfer.

The Supreme Court of Canada heard two appeals arising from a motion for a declaratory judgment filed by Hydro-Québec in the Superior Court of Quebec.

Hydro-Québec sought a declaration regarding its rights under a Power Contract with Churchill Falls, following an Order in Council by Newfoundland requiring Churchill Falls to supply it with power.

Newfoundland filed a declinatory exception, arguing the Quebec courts lacked jurisdiction over it, while Churchill Falls filed a motion to dismiss, arguing Hydro-Québec lacked sufficient interest and raising lis pendens.

The Court allowed Newfoundland's appeal, holding that the jurisdiction clause in the Power Contract did not bind Newfoundland, which was not a party to it.

The Court dismissed Churchill Falls' appeal, finding that Hydro-Québec had a real interest in resolving the genuine legal problem created by the threat to its contractual rights, and that there was no lis pendens with the proceedings in Newfoundland.