H. C. Wendlandt

The employer changed the work schedule of its employees, resulting in the loss of Sunday rest days.

The union filed a grievance and sought an interim injunction from the British Columbia Supreme Court to postpone the implementation of the new schedule pending arbitration.

The employer appealed the court's jurisdiction to issue the injunction.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that courts retain a residual discretionary power to grant interlocutory relief where no adequate alternative remedy exists under the statutory labour scheme, even in the absence of a cause of action claiming final relief.

The appellant railway challenged an environmental prosecution arising from controlled burns that released dense smoke onto neighbouring properties, roads, and residences.

The appeal focused on whether Ontario's broad pollution prohibition in s. 13(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act was unconstitutionally vague or overbroad under s. 7 of the Charter.

The Court held that, in the environmental regulatory context, broad language may be constitutionally valid where the provision provides sufficient guidance for legal debate and does not capture merely trivial or imaginary impairments.

The Court rejected the vagueness and overbreadth claims, affirmed the constitutional applicability of the provision to the federal undertaking, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, a federal undertaking, appealed a decision regarding the application of the provincial Environmental Protection Act to the maintenance of its right-of-way.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal on the first ground, holding that the provincial environmental legislation constitutionally applies to the appellant based on established precedent.