Jean-François Jobin

The media organizations challenged rules and a directive that limited filming, taking photographs, and conducting interviews to predetermined locations in courthouses, and prohibited the broadcasting of official audio recordings of hearings.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while these activities are protected by s. 2(b) of the Charter and the measures infringe freedom of expression, the limits are reasonable and justified under s. 1.

The measures advance the pressing and substantial objective of maintaining the fair administration of justice by ensuring the serenity of hearings, protecting the privacy of litigants, and reducing stress on witnesses.

The appellant challenged the constitutionality and administrative validity of a Quebec regulatory provision respecting the colour of margarine.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the provision falls within provincial jurisdiction over local trade, does not infringe freedom of expression under the Charter, and was clearly authorized by its enabling legislation.

The respondent Attorney General of Quebec brought a motion to strike portions of the appellant's record and factum.

The Attorney General argued that certain material filed by the appellant during the leave to appeal application constituted fresh evidence that was not before the lower courts, and that a new constitutional argument under s. 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867 was improperly raised.

The Supreme Court of Canada granted the motion in part.

The Court struck the material from the record, finding it did not meet the test for fresh evidence as there was no due diligence and the evidence was not determinative.

However, the Court declined to strike the s. 121 argument, holding that it was relevant to the stated constitutional questions and should be determined by the Court.

The appellants, contractors and construction workers, were charged with hiring employees without required competency certificates or working without them, contrary to the Quebec Construction Act.

They challenged the constitutionality of the Act, arguing that the requirement to join one of five designated union groups to obtain a competency certificate violated their freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter, specifically the negative right not to associate.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

A majority held that while s. 2(d) includes a negative right not to associate, the legislation did not infringe this right as it did not impose ideological conformity, or alternatively, any infringement was justified under s. 1 of the Charter given the complex history of labour relations in the Quebec construction industry.

The Mount Sinai Hospital Center relocated to Montreal after receiving promises from successive Ministers of Health and Social Services that its operating permit would be modified to reflect its long-term and short-term care services.

After the move, the Minister refused to issue the modified permit, citing financial reasons.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Minister's appeal, holding that the Minister had already exercised his discretion under s. 138 of the Act respecting health services and social services when he promised the permit and encouraged the relocation.

The subsequent refusal was not a valid reversal of that discretion and was patently unreasonable.

The Minister was ordered to issue the modified permit.

The Governor in Council referred two questions to the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the constitutional validity of proposed amendments to Quebec's sales tax designed to harmonize it with the federal goods and services tax.

The Court held that the proposed value-added tax, including the input tax refund mechanism and various exemptions, constitutes direct taxation within the province.

The tax is therefore within the legislative authority of the province under section 92(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal which held that the respondent telephone company is an interprovincial work and undertaking within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the undertaking falls under federal jurisdiction pursuant to ss. 92(10)(a) and 91(29) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court found that the nature of the services provided and the mode of operation, which allowed subscribers to send and receive interprovincial and international communications, placed the telecommunication signal carrier service within federal authority.

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.