Jean-René Maranda

The appellants refused to hire or dismissed the complainants because of physical anomalies (spinal anomalies and Crohn's disease) that did not result in functional limitations.

The complainants alleged discrimination based on handicap under s. 10 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the definition of 'handicap' includes physical anomalies that do not result in functional limitations, as well as perceived handicaps.

The Court emphasized a multidimensional approach that considers the socio-political dimension of handicap, focusing on human dignity and the right to equality.

The appeals were dismissed.

On an application to vacate what the moving party asserted was an automatic stay arising from the filing of a notice of appeal, the Court held that s. 65(1) of the Supreme Court Act stays execution, not proceedings.

Where a party seeks to suspend ongoing tribunal proceedings after a remittal from the Court of Appeal, the proper route is an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 65.1(1) and Rule 27.

The Court concluded that no stay existed and therefore there was nothing to dissolve, although the practical effect was that the Tribunal remained free to continue its proceedings.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The appellant appealed from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal that allowed the Crown's appeal from his acquittal and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that there was admissible evidence pertaining to all elements of the fraud offence which, if accepted by a jury, would justify a guilty verdict.

Consequently, the trial judge erred in granting the motion for a directed verdict.