Gérald Tremblay

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 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.