Gérard Dugré

The respondent brought an action against the appellants and during an examination on discovery, the appellants requested the production of numerous documents.

The respondent sought a confidentiality agreement to prevent the documents from being disclosed to third parties, which the appellants refused.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that there is an implied rule of confidentiality in Quebec civil procedure regarding information obtained at an examination on discovery.

The Court found that an examination on discovery is not a sitting of the court and that the implied rule of confidentiality protects privacy interests recognized in the Quebec Charter and the Civil Code of Québec.

The appellant landscaping and lawn care companies challenged a Town of Hudson by-law that restricted the use of pesticides within its perimeter to specified locations and activities.

The appellants argued the by-law was ultra vires the municipality's authority and conflicted with federal and provincial pesticide legislation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the by-law was validly enacted under the general welfare provision of the provincial Cities and Towns Act, as it was genuinely aimed at furthering public health and safety.

The Court also found no operational conflict with federal or provincial legislation, as dual compliance was possible, establishing a tri-level regulatory regime for pesticides.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal from the Quebec Court of Appeal, agreeing with the dissenting reasons of Forget J.A. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was set aside and the decision of the Commission d’appel en matière de lésions professionnelles was restored.

The parties separated after a marriage under the regime of separation of property.

The husband went bankrupt and was discharged before the wife filed for divorce and claimed a compensatory allowance and lump sum support.

The trial judge awarded the wife $40,000.

The Court of Appeal set aside the award, finding the husband's bankruptcy barred the compensatory allowance and the wife had waived her alimentary claim.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the bankruptcy discharge did not bar the compensatory allowance claim, as it was not a provable claim in bankruptcy, and the trial judge properly found an alimentary claim was before him.