Gérard V. La Forest

The appellants were charged with conspiracy to prevent or lessen competition unduly, contrary to s. 32(1)(c) of the Combines Investigation Act.

They moved to quash the indictment, arguing that the provision violated s. 7 of the Charter due to vagueness and an unconstitutional mens rea requirement.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the word 'unduly' is not unconstitutionally vague, as it provides a sufficient basis for legal debate and fair notice.

The Court also held that the mens rea requirement of the offence, which requires subjective intent to enter the agreement and objective fault regarding the undue lessening of competition, satisfies the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7.

The appellant bank, as assignee of a bankrupt subcontractor's accounts receivable, brought a delictual action against the respondent owner (Hydro-Québec) for failing to disclose geotechnical reports that revealed poor soil conditions and errors in the original design.

The trial judge allowed the action, finding the owner acted fraudulently by hiding the information, which led to the subcontractor's financial ruin.

The Court of Appeal reversed this decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part, holding that the Court of Appeal erred in overturning the trial judge's findings of fact without demonstrating a palpable and overriding error.

The Court affirmed that a contracting party can be delictually liable to a third party (the subcontractor) for failing to act reasonably, which includes a duty to inform in the context of a large construction project where the owner possesses superior expertise and knowledge of design errors.

The respondent defaulted on a loan secured by a hypothec on three lots.

Before the sheriff's sale, the respondent waived its right to a discharge under the Civil Code of Lower Canada in exchange for the appellants agreeing to sell the lots in two stages.

After the first sale of two lots, the appellants bought the third lot at a second sale.

The respondent sued for a discharge based on the first sale's value and sought to vacate the second sale.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the discharge provisions are of public order and the premature waiver was null, the respondent failed to follow the proper procedure to claim its discharge before the second sale occurred.

The Court also found no grounds to vacate the second sale, and the issue was res judicata.

The appeal was allowed and the respondent's action dismissed.

The federal government enacted the Goods and Services Tax (GST).

The province of Alberta challenged the constitutionality of the GST Act, arguing it infringed on provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights, amounted to taxation of provincial property, and unconstitutionally appropriated provincial funds by requiring the province to collect and remit the tax.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the GST Act was a valid exercise of the federal taxation power under s. 91(3) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court found that the collection and remittance obligations were necessarily incidental to the federal scheme and did not violate intergovernmental immunity or entitle suppliers to compensation for collection costs.

The Competition Tribunal issued an order requiring Chrysler Canada Ltd. to resume supplying automotive parts to a customer.

When the Director of Investigation and Research believed Chrysler was not complying, a motion was filed for Chrysler to show cause why it should not be held in contempt.

Chrysler objected to the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear contempt proceedings.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Competition Tribunal, as an inferior court of record, has jurisdiction over civil contempt for breaches of its orders under Part VIII of the Competition Act, and that this jurisdiction does not violate section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The complainant alleged that the respondent insurance company discriminated against young, single, male drivers by charging them higher automobile insurance premiums than other groups.

The respondent conceded a prima facie infringement of the Human Rights Code but argued the distinction was based on reasonable and bona fide grounds under s. 21.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the discriminatory practice was reasonable because it was based on sound and accepted insurance practice and there was no practical alternative available to the industry at the time.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a young woman addicted to prescription painkillers, sought drugs from the respondent, an elderly physician.

The respondent discovered her addiction and demanded sexual favours in exchange for prescribing the drugs.

The appellant acquiesced out of desperation.

She later sued for battery, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the power imbalance and exploitative nature of the relationship vitiated the appellant's consent to the sexual contact.

The Court awarded aggravated and punitive damages, finding the doctor's conduct reprehensible and a breach of his professional and fiduciary duties.

The appellant physician refused to provide her patient, the respondent, with copies of medical reports and records received from other physicians, claiming they were the property of those physicians.

The patient applied for an order directing the physician to provide a copy of her entire medical file.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the physical medical records belong to the physician, the physician-patient relationship is fiduciary in nature.

This gives the patient a trust-like beneficial interest in the information contained in the records.

Therefore, in the absence of legislation, a patient is entitled to examine and copy all information in their medical records that the physician considered in administering advice or treatment, subject to the court's superintending jurisdiction if access would cause harm.

The Crown appealed acquittals entered by the provincial appellate court after a trial judge had convicted the accused of sexual offences against three young girls.

The Supreme Court held that under s. 686(1)(a)(i) an appellate court may re-examine and to some extent reweigh the evidence, including credibility-based findings, but must show substantial deference to the trial judge's assessment.

The Court further held that children's evidence is not inherently unreliable and should not be assessed through rigid adult credibility stereotypes or assumptions about how victims of sexual abuse ought to behave.

The appellate court erred by overstating inconsistencies, discounting supporting evidence, and relying on outdated views about corroboration and complaint.

The appeal was allowed and the convictions were restored.

The appellant and respondent divorced after a 29-year marriage.

The respondent was awarded indefinite spousal maintenance and a share of the appellant's pension based only on his contributions.

When the appellant was forced into early retirement, his sole income became his pension.

He applied to vary the maintenance order, arguing that paying support from his pension constituted 'double dipping' since it had already been divided as property.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding no double recovery because the original pension division was a rough estimate that did not account for the employer's contributions or future value.

The Court upheld the chambers judge's decision to reduce, rather than terminate, the support payments.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada sought certification as the bargaining agent for Canadian civilian employees working at a United States naval base in Newfoundland.

The United States claimed sovereign immunity from the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Relations Board.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the bare contracts of employment had commercial aspects, the certification proceedings and the imposition of a collective bargaining regime would unacceptably interfere with the sovereign management and operation of the military base.

The Court concluded that the proceedings did not relate to a commercial activity within the meaning of the State Immunity Act, and therefore the United States was entitled to state immunity.

The appellant was convicted of living on the avails of prostitution after working at an escort agency.

He challenged the constitutionality of s. 195(2) of the Criminal Code, which creates a presumption that a person living with or habitually in the company of prostitutes is living on the avails of prostitution.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the presumption infringes the right to be presumed innocent under s. 11(d) of the Charter, it is a reasonable limit demonstrably justified under s. 1.

The provision targets the exploitative activity of pimps and represents a minimal impairment of the presumption of innocence given the difficulty of obtaining evidence from vulnerable prostitutes.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal which quashed an arbitration board's award.

The Court of Appeal held that the failure to give notice of the arbitration to two unions that could be significantly affected by the award constituted a denial of natural justice.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with this conclusion and dismissed the appeal, noting that fairness and natural justice require notice to those significantly affected.

The Court also clarified that an arbitrator cannot be granted jurisdiction over a jurisdictional dispute without statutory authority or the consent of all parties.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the possession of a lot, claiming adverse possession.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the appellant's possession of the property was by virtue of a lease.

Consequently, the appellant did not hold the property adversely to the respondent.

The liquidator of the Canadian Commercial Bank appealed a decision regarding whether interest received on loans after liquidation fell within the scope of security granted under certain agreements.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Alberta Court of Appeal that the interest on the loans in question came within the charging provisions of the security agreements.

The accused was acquitted of first-degree murder at trial.

The Crown appealed, arguing that defence counsel incorrectly summarized evidence concerning access to the accused's car in his address to the jury, and the trial judge failed to correct these errors.

The Quebec Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial.

The accused appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the Court of Appeal that the Crown had met the burden of showing that the verdict would not necessarily have been the same had the evidence been correctly summarized.

A marine negligence appeal concerning recovery of contractual relational economic loss after a tug and barge damaged a railway bridge owned by the Crown but used by the respondent under contract.

The majority held that pure economic loss is prima facie recoverable where negligence, foreseeability, and sufficient proximity are established, subject to residual policy limits.

On the facts, the respondent's operations were so closely integrated with the damaged bridge that recovery was justified within a limited joint or common venture category and did not create indeterminate liability.

The dissent would have maintained the bright-line exclusionary rule for contractual relational economic loss absent a proprietary or possessory interest or other compelling policy basis.

The appellants were dismissed without cause from their employment.

Their employment contracts contained termination clauses providing for notice periods less than the minimum required by the Employment Standards Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that because the contractual notice provisions violated the statutory minimums, they were null and void for all purposes.

Consequently, the contracts were treated as being silent on the issue of notice, and the common law presumption of reasonable notice applied.

The employer could not rely on the void clauses as evidence of the parties' intention to limit notice to the statutory minimum.

The appellants appealed as of right from a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal that quashed stays of proceedings ordered by the Superior Court on grounds of unreasonable delay.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that in the exceptional circumstances of the case, it was open to the prosecution to exercise its discretion to declare a stay of proceedings by way of nolle prosequi, and there were no grounds for the stay of proceedings ordered by the Superior Court judge.

The Crown appealed as of right from a judgment of the Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Appeal Division, which upheld the accused's acquittal on charges of indecent assault and sexual assault.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the Appeal Division that the trial judge made no error of law regarding the standard of proof, the consideration of evidence, or the credibility of a child witness.