Ian G. Scott

The appellant entered into a mortgage agreement that included a profit-sharing scheme.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Court of Appeal's decision that the scheme constituted a criminal interest rate under s. 347 of the Criminal Code.

The Court also held that s. 347 is intra vires the Parliament of Canada and does not unconstitutionally infringe on provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights.

The appellant, a Sikh employee, was dismissed for refusing to wear a hard hat as required by a company safety rule, because his religion forbade wearing anything other than a turban.

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found the employer engaged in a discriminatory practice and ordered reinstatement.

The Federal Court of Appeal set aside that decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the hard hat rule was a bona fide occupational requirement under s. 14(a) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Court found that where a bona fide occupational requirement is established, there is no duty to accommodate the individual employee.

The appellant municipality appealed a custody order under s. 20 of the Juvenile Delinquents Act that directed it to pay for the support of a juvenile delinquent placed in a group home.

The municipality challenged the constitutional validity of s. 20(2) of the Act, arguing it was ultra vires Parliament.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that s. 20(2) was not valid criminal law or necessarily incidental to it, as it improperly imposed a financial burden on municipal institutions created by the province.