Gérald R. Tremblay

The applicant, a judge facing complaints before the Inquiry Committee of the Canadian Judicial Council, sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Committee regarding preliminary matters.

The Attorney General of Canada moved to strike the application as premature.

The applicant brought a motion to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of a leave to appeal application before the Supreme Court of Canada regarding previous struck applications.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion for a stay and granted the motion to strike, concluding that the application for judicial review of the interlocutory decision was premature as it did not raise exceptional circumstances calling into question the rule of law.

The applicant, a federally appointed judge, sought a stay of an impending Canadian Judicial Council inquiry into his conduct pending the determination of several judicial review applications challenging the validity of the complaints process.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the underlying judicial review applications were premature because the administrative process was ongoing.

The Court held that the applicant failed to meet the three-part test for a stay, specifically noting that the issues were not serious as they were premature, and that the harm alleged was inherent to the disciplinary process and not irreparable.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of a recommendation included in the Report of the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission.

The deadline was missed because counsel failed to account for the holiday period.

The respondent objected, arguing the report is consultative and the application is premature.

The Court suspended the motion for an extension of time until the Minister of Justice issues a response to the Commission's report, as the statutory process must run its course to crystallize the issues.

The plaintiff sued her attending physicians and a prosthesis manufacturer for medical malpractice, claiming damages for pain, suffering, and reactive depression.

During examination on discovery, the defendants sought disclosure of the plaintiff's psychiatric records.

The plaintiff refused, citing professional secrecy.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that by claiming damages for psychological harm, the plaintiff implicitly waived the confidentiality of her medical records.

The defendants demonstrated the apparent relevance of the records for their defence, and the trial judge correctly dismissed the plaintiff's objection to disclosure.

The appellant challenged the constitutionality and administrative validity of a Quebec regulatory provision respecting the colour of margarine.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the provision falls within provincial jurisdiction over local trade, does not infringe freedom of expression under the Charter, and was clearly authorized by its enabling legislation.

The appellant was severely injured in a car accident and treated by the respondent orthopaedic surgeon.

The respondent failed to diagnose a spinal fracture, leading to delayed immobilization, and the appellant was eventually diagnosed with paraparesis.

The trial judge found no fault and no causation.

The Court of Appeal found the respondent committed a fault by failing to conduct proper neurological tests and immobilize the patient, but upheld the trial judge's conclusion that the accident itself, not the medical fault, caused the paraparesis.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, affirming the Court of Appeal's intervention on the standard of care and its factual findings on causation, and declined to apply a presumption of causation.

The appellant brought an action for damages for unfair trade practices against the respondents in the Superior Court.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss this action on the ground of lis pendens since an action for damages for unfair trade practices, based both on s. 31.1(1) of the Combines Investigation Act and on general civil liability, and involving the same parties, was pending in the Federal Court.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the action brought in the Superior Court should be dismissed on the ground of lis pendens, as both courts were equally competent and there was an identity of parties, object, and cause between the two cases.

The CRTC granted Bell Canada an interim rate increase in 1984, subject to review.

In 1986, after a final hearing, the CRTC determined that the interim rates had yielded excess revenues of $206 million and ordered Bell Canada to distribute this amount to customers via a one-time credit.

The Federal Court of Appeal quashed the order.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the CRTC's appeal, holding that the power to make interim orders under the Railway Act and National Transportation Act necessarily implies the power to review those rates retrospectively and to make remedial orders, such as a one-time credit, if the interim rates are found to be unjust or unreasonable.

The respondent brought an action in the Federal Court alleging the appellants formed an agreement violating the Combines Investigation Act and claiming damages under both the Act and the Civil Code of Lower Canada.

The appellants challenged the constitutionality of the provisions creating a private cause of action and conferring jurisdiction on the Federal Court, as well as the court's competence to hear the provincial law claim.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the impugned provisions of the Combines Investigation Act are intra vires Parliament under the trade and commerce power.

The Court further held that the Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear the claim under the federal Act, but lacks jurisdiction to hear the claim based on the Civil Code.

The appellant, an agent of the Crown in right of Quebec, purchased over 10 per cent of the shares of a company governed by the Canada Business Corporations Act, becoming an insider.

It refused to submit an insider report, claiming Crown immunity under s. 16 of the federal Interpretation Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the insider reporting provisions applied to the appellant.

By purchasing shares, the appellant implicitly accepted the benefits of the statutory regime and could not accept the benefit of the law without also incurring its burdens.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Commission des droits de la personne investigated the dismissal of two employees following an unfavourable RCMP report.

The Commission ordered an RCMP officer to produce documents, but the Solicitor General of Canada filed an affidavit objecting on national security grounds under s. 41(2) of the Federal Court Act.

The Commission dismissed the objection, prompting the Attorney General of Canada to seek a writ of evocation.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Commission's appeal, holding that the Commission is a court within the meaning of s. 41(2), the affidavit was sufficient, and the absolute Crown privilege created by the provision is constitutionally valid and not barred by the Canadian Bill of Rights.