Gordon F. Henderson

The appellant employer was found by a three-member panel of the Ontario Labour Relations Board to have failed to bargain in good faith by not disclosing an impending plant closure.

Before the decision was finalized, the panel discussed the policy implications of the case at a full board meeting.

The appellant challenged the decision, arguing the full board meeting violated the rules of natural justice, specifically the principles of 'he who decides must hear' and 'audi alteram partem'.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that institutional consultation processes like full board meetings do not violate natural justice provided they are limited to policy discussions, facts are taken as given, no votes are taken, and parties are given an opportunity to respond if new grounds are raised.

The Auditor General of Canada sought access to Cabinet documents and Crown corporation records relating to Petro-Canada's acquisition of Petrofina, relying on section 13(1) of the Auditor General Act.

The government denied access, citing Cabinet confidentiality and the limits of the Auditor General's mandate.

The Auditor General applied to the courts for a declaration of his right to access the information.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the dispute was not justiciable.

The Court found that the Auditor General's exclusive remedy for a denial of access to information is the political remedy provided in section 7(1)(b) of the Act, which requires him to report the denial to the House of Commons.

The appellants challenged the federal cabinet's decision to permit the United States to test cruise missiles in Canada, alleging it violated their right to life, liberty, and security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter by increasing the risk of nuclear war.

The respondents moved to strike out the statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while cabinet decisions are reviewable under the Charter, the statement of claim must be struck out.

The Court found that the causal link between the testing of the cruise missile and an increased risk of nuclear war was entirely speculative and incapable of proof, meaning the facts alleged could not establish a violation of s. 7.

The Governor in Council referred a constitutional question to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding whether Canada or Newfoundland has the right to explore and exploit, and the legislative jurisdiction over, the mineral and other natural resources of the continental shelf offshore Newfoundland.

The Court held that the continental shelf rights are an extraterritorial manifestation of external sovereignty.

Since Newfoundland did not possess external sovereignty prior to joining Confederation, and international law did not recognize continental shelf rights at that time, the rights accrued to Canada.

Consequently, Canada has both the right to explore and exploit the resources and the legislative jurisdiction over them under its residual peace, order, and good government power.

The respondent Crown corporations were charged under the Combines Investigation Act with conspiring to unduly lessen competition in the uranium industry.

They sought prohibition orders to prevent the Provincial Court from proceeding, arguing they were immune from prosecution as agents of the Crown.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Combines Investigation Act does not bind the Crown.

Furthermore, because both corporations were statutorily designated as agents of the Crown 'for all its purposes' and were acting within their authorized corporate objects, they were entitled to Crown immunity.

The appeals by the Crown were dismissed.

The appellants obtained an injunction against the respondent in a patent infringement action.

The trial judge delivered written reasons for decision on December 11, 1980, but the formal judgment was not signed until December 18, 1980.

The respondent allegedly continued to sell the infringing product during this period.

The appellants sought a contempt order, which was dismissed by the lower courts on the basis that the injunction was not effective until the formal judgment was signed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that while the judgment itself takes effect upon signing, flouting the clear prohibitions in the reasons for decision before the formal judgment is signed can constitute contempt by interfering with the orderly administration of justice.

The appellant church trustees applied to demolish a building on their property.

The City of Ottawa subsequently designated the property as a heritage building under The Ontario Heritage Act, which required the City's consent for demolition.

The Act provided that if the City failed to notify the applicant of its decision within ninety days, it would be deemed to have consented.

The City decided to refuse the application and expropriate the property within the ninety days, and the appellants knew of this decision, but the City failed to give formal notice as required by the Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the notice provisions were substantive protections for the landowner and could not be ignored.

Because the City failed to comply with the statutory notice requirements, it was conclusively deemed to have consented to the demolition.

The appellants infringed a patent held by Congoleum, who had granted a non-exclusive licence to the respondent Domco.

The appellants settled with Congoleum but not with Domco.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that a non-exclusive licensee is a 'person claiming under' the patentee within the meaning of s. 57(1) of the Patent Act.

Therefore, the licensee has a statutory right of action for damages sustained by reason of the infringement, which the patentee cannot extinguish by settling with the infringer.

The appellants and respondent TransCanada entered into a contract for the sale and delivery of gas at a fixed price.

TransCanada applied to the National Energy Board to fix just and reasonable rates or tolls for transportation services.

The Board ordered that the Imputed Alberta Border Price be substituted for the contractual sale price of the gas.

The appellants appealed, arguing the Board exceeded its jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the Board's authority under the National Energy Board Act to fix transportation tolls did not include the power to alter the contract price for the sale of gas as a commodity.

The appellant was convicted of breaking and entering a dwelling.

At trial, his counsel waived the holding of a voir dire regarding the voluntariness of a statement made to police.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in failing to conduct a voir dire despite the waiver, and in failing to conduct one to determine if the statement was actually made or after the appellant testified about alleged threats and inducements.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that an accused or their counsel may expressly waive a voir dire, and that the trial judge did not err in his exercise of discretion.