Guy Du Pont

A power producer sought judicial intervention to force renegotiation of a long-term fixed-price electricity contract after market changes generated large resale profits for the purchaser.

The Court held Quebec civil law did not provide a basis to imply a duty to renegotiate, to apply unforeseeability in these circumstances, or to redistribute contractual benefits through good faith or equity.

The agreement allocated price fluctuation risk and remained enforceable as written.

The appeal was dismissed, with a dissent that would have recognized a relational-contract duty to cooperate.

The appellant newspaper appealed orders compelling its journalist to answer questions that could reveal a confidential source, and a publication ban on reporting settlement negotiations in the Sponsorship Scandal litigation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while no class-based constitutional privilege exists for journalists, the common law Wigmore framework applies in Quebec civil proceedings to determine journalist-source privilege on a case-by-case basis.

The Court also quashed the publication ban, finding it was improperly issued without notice and failed the Dagenais/Mentuck test, as the media was not bound by the parties' confidentiality undertakings.

The Supreme Court of Canada considered a proposed plan of arrangement for a leveraged buyout of BCE Inc. that would add substantial debt to Bell Canada, reducing the trading value of its debentures.

The debentureholders opposed the arrangement, claiming oppression under s. 241 of the CBCA and arguing the arrangement was not fair and reasonable under s. 192.

The Court held that the directors' fiduciary duty is owed to the corporation, not to specific stakeholders, though directors may consider stakeholder interests.

The debentureholders failed to establish a reasonable expectation that their investment grade rating would be maintained.

The Court affirmed the trial judge's approval of the arrangement, finding it had a valid business purpose and resolved objections in a fair and balanced way.

The appellant, a non-resident of Quebec, retired from an accounting partnership and received a retirement allowance.

The province of Quebec assessed tax on a portion of the allowance equivalent to the percentage of the partnership's total income earned in the province.

The appellant challenged the assessment, arguing the taxing provisions exceeded the province's constitutional authority under s. 92(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the retirement allowance constituted a share of the partnership's business income earned in Quebec, and the province validly exercised its taxing power.

The syndic of the Ordre des pharmaciens began an inquiry into allegations that generic drug manufacturers were providing illegal kickbacks to pharmacists.

The syndic requested documents from a manufacturer under s. 122 of the Professional Code.

The manufacturer refused, arguing the provision only applied to professionals.

The syndic sought and obtained a general law injunction to compel disclosure.

The Court of Appeal reversed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that s. 122 applies to third parties and that a general law injunction is available to enforce the syndic's investigatory powers despite the existence of specific penal remedies in the Code.

A unionized employee of Concordia University applied for authorization to institute a class action against the university to contest decisions made regarding the administration and use of the pension fund.

The vast majority of the plan's members were unionized employees covered by collective agreements that referred to the pension plan.

The Superior Court dismissed the motion, finding that a grievance arbitrator had exclusive jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal set aside that decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the Superior Court's decision, holding that the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of grievance arbitrators and that the class action procedure could not alter the jurisdiction of courts and tribunals or bypass the representation mechanisms established under Quebec labour law.

The appellants borrowed money to purchase shares in foreign companies structured to avoid FAPI rules and provide tax advantages.

Over eight years, they received $600,000 in dividends and incurred $6 million in interest charges, which they deducted under s. 20(1)(c)(i) of the Income Tax Act.

The Minister disallowed the deductions, arguing the true purpose was to defer taxes and convert income into capital gains.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the test for interest deductibility is whether the taxpayer had a reasonable expectation of income at the time the investment was made.

The Court found the appellants had such an expectation, and the interest costs were deductible.

Tax appeal concerning the proper timing of deductions for tenant inducement payments made by a commercial real estate developer in a highly competitive leasing market.

The Court held that profit under the Income Tax Act is determined by any method consistent with the Act, case law, and well-accepted business principles that yields an accurate picture of income for the year.

The matching principle was not a rule of law and could not be imposed automatically where the payments generated both immediate and future benefits.

Because the taxpayer's method provided an accurate picture of income and the Minister failed to show that amortization was more accurate, the appeal was allowed and the full deduction in the year incurred was restored.

The appellants appealed a decision regarding the issuance of search warrants under the Competition Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, adopting the reasons of the Federal Court of Appeal which held that the Act does not provide for an appeal from the issuance of search warrants.

The appellants appealed decisions granting interlocutory impounding orders for commercial documents seized during tax investigations.

The respondents had challenged the constitutionality of the search provisions under the Charter and sought to have the documents sealed pending a final determination.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, applying the three-part test for interlocutory relief.

The Court found a serious question to be tried, irreparable harm due to the continuing violation of privacy interests in the respondents' homes and offices, and that the balance of convenience favoured the respondents as the impounding orders would not paralyze the enforcement of taxation laws.

The appellants were investigated for income tax evasion and search warrants were issued under s. 231.3 of the Income Tax Act.

After the initial warrants were quashed, a second warrant was issued.

The appellants challenged the second warrant and the constitutionality of s. 231.3 by way of an originating petition for a declaration.

The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed the application, and the Court of Appeal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the matter was criminal in nature.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an action for a declaration, and that s. 231.3 of the Income Tax Act violates s. 8 of the Charter.

The appellants appealed a Federal Court of Appeal decision quashing search warrants issued under section 231.3 of the Income Tax Act.

The respondents challenged the warrants, arguing that section 231.3 violated section 8 of the Charter by using the imperative word 'shall', thereby removing the authorizing judge's residual discretion to refuse a warrant even if statutory criteria were met.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that a residual discretion is an indispensable requirement for a reasonable search under section 8 of the Charter.

Section 231.3(3) was declared to be of no force or effect.

The Superintendent of Bankruptcy initiated an investigation into the appellants and the RCMP obtained a search warrant under s. 443 of the Criminal Code.

The appellants applied to quash the warrant, arguing that the search should have been conducted under s. 6(2) of the Bankruptcy Act instead.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the 1985 amendment to s. 443 of the Criminal Code made it applicable to all federal statutes, regardless of whether they contain their own search and seizure provisions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants sought to quash search warrants issued ex parte under section 231.3 of the Income Tax Act.

The issuing judge reviewed the warrants but dismissed the application.

The Court of Appeal held it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that sections 231.3 and 239 of the Income Tax Act are criminal in nature, deriving their constitutional validity from the federal criminal law power.

Consequently, any right of appeal must be found in federal statute, and since neither the Income Tax Act nor the Criminal Code provides for an appeal from the issuance of a search warrant, no appeal lies.

The appellant, a chartered accountant, appealed a decision of the Court of Appeal for Quebec which held that no appeal lies from a Superior Court judge's approval of a search and seizure authorization issued by the Minister of National Revenue under the Income Tax Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, concluding that the judge's approval does not constitute a final judgment under the Code of Civil Procedure, as it merely permits the search and does not determine the rights of the parties or terminate a proceeding.

The Court also found that the Superior Court judge did not exceed his jurisdiction in granting the approval.