Henri Brun

A constitutional appeal concerning whether Quebec occupational health and safety provisions governing protective re-assignment of a pregnant worker applied to a federal telecommunications undertaking.

The Court held that the provincial scheme, though aimed at worker health and safety, in pith and substance regulated working conditions, labour relations, and the management and operation of undertakings.

As applied to federal undertakings, those matters fell within Parliament's exclusive jurisdiction, rendering the provincial provisions constitutionally inapplicable.

The Court rejected reliance on the double aspect theory and held it unnecessary to decide the operational conflict issue.

Following a collision between two Canadian National Railway trains in Quebec, an inspector from the provincial Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail initiated an investigation under the provincial Act respecting occupational health and safety.

The railway company challenged the investigation, arguing the provincial statute could not constitutionally apply to a federal undertaking.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the provincial occupational health and safety legislation, because of its preventive nature, directly regulates the working conditions and management of the undertaking.

Consequently, the investigative powers under the Act are wholly inapplicable to an interprovincial railway undertaking.

The Attorney General of Quebec appealed a decision declaring provisions of the Act respecting municipal taxation unconstitutional.

The impugned provisions created a new system of school financing based on government grants, making taxation a complementary method subject to a referendum requirement for amounts exceeding a certain limit.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the provisions prejudicially affected the rights and privileges respecting denominational schools guaranteed by section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Specifically, the legislation failed to ensure proportional distribution of grants and subjected the taxing power of denominational school boards to the approval of electors outside their districts.

The appeal was dismissed and the provisions were declared ultra vires.

The Government of Quebec referred a question to the Quebec Court of Appeal asking whether its consent was constitutionally required, by convention, for the adoption of a resolution to amend the Canadian Constitution in a way that affected its legislative competence or status.

The Court of Appeal answered in the negative, and Quebec appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Quebec has no conventional power of veto over constitutional amendments.

The Court reaffirmed its previous ruling that there is no conventional rule of unanimity among the provinces, and found that Quebec failed to demonstrate that the other political actors had recognized or accepted a specific conventional veto power for Quebec.

The Attorney General of British Columbia appealed a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal which held that provisions of the Family Relations Act conferring jurisdiction on the Provincial Court over guardianship, custody, access, occupancy of the family residence, and non-entry orders were ultra vires the province under s. 96 of the British North America Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part, holding that it is within the authority of the province to confer jurisdiction on the Provincial Court respecting guardianship of the person of the child and custody of or access to the child.

However, the Court held that conferring jurisdiction respecting orders concerning occupancy and use of the family residence and the making of non-entry orders was ultra vires.

The Attorney General of Quebec appealed a decision refusing a writ of prohibition against a Youth Court judge who proceeded with a robbery charge against a juvenile under the federal Juvenile Delinquents Act and Criminal Code.

The appellant argued that the provincial Youth Protection Act precluded such proceedings unless brought in accordance with its provisions.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that section 455 of the Criminal Code is valid federal legislation and that the relevant sections of the provincial Youth Protection Act are rendered inoperative in this context due to paramountcy, as they conflict with the valid federal criminal process.

The appellant obtained writs of evocation from decisions of the Professions Tribunal, which had quashed a Discipline Committee's decision.

The Superior Court held that the wide powers conferred upon the Professions Tribunal, combined with privative clauses, offended s. 96 of the B.N.A. Act by effectively creating a s. 96 court.

The Court of Appeal reversed this decision.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada held that a provincial legislature cannot constitutionally insulate a statutory tribunal from curial review of its decisions on questions of jurisdiction.

The appeal was allowed and the Superior Court judgments restored.

The Attorney General of Quebec applied for a rehearing to determine whether section 133 of the British North America Act applies to delegated legislation, such as regulations of statutory bodies, municipalities, and school boards.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that section 133 applies to regulations enacted by the provincial government, ministers, and agencies subject to government approval, as well as to court rules of practice.

However, the Court concluded that section 133 does not apply to municipal or school body by-laws, even if they are subject to government approval.

The appellants challenged the constitutionality of provisions in the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure that exclude representation by counsel before the Small Claims Division of the Provincial Court.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, answering the constitutional question in the affirmative and upholding the competence of the National Assembly of Quebec to enact such exclusions.