Jérôme Choquette

The respondents refused to pay an electricity bill for a rental property they owned.

Hydro-Québec interrupted the supply of electricity to their principal residence, even though that account was not in arrears.

The respondents sued for damages.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that under the applicable bylaws, Hydro-Québec has the authority to interrupt service at any delivery point for which a defaulting customer holds a contract, not just the specific location with the unpaid bill.

The appeal was allowed.

The respondent bank sued the appellant on a hypothecary suretyship.

The parties reached a settlement agreement, but the bank subsequently withdrew its counter-offer and denied the existence of the transaction.

The trial judge and Court of Appeal both confirmed the validity of the transaction.

However, the Court of Appeal ordered the appellant to pay interest and an additional indemnity because she failed to deposit the settlement funds.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was never put in default by the bank, which had steadfastly refused to recognize the transaction.

Therefore, interest never began to run, and the bank could not claim interest on an obligation it had rendered impossible to perform.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her claim for compensation by the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec and the Commission des affaires sociales.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that the Commission's decisions were patently unreasonable because the evidence clearly showed the appellant met the definition of 'spouses' under the Automobile Insurance Act.

The Court ordered the payment of compensation and additional indemnity with interest.

The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of a municipal surtax on non-residential buildings imposed by the City of Montreal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that the surtax is a direct tax raised for provincial purposes within the meaning of s. 92(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court found that the taxes fall into the category of true land taxes.