John R. Sproat

The appellants were dismissed without cause from their employment.

Their employment contracts contained termination clauses providing for notice periods less than the minimum required by the Employment Standards Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that because the contractual notice provisions violated the statutory minimums, they were null and void for all purposes.

Consequently, the contracts were treated as being silent on the issue of notice, and the common law presumption of reasonable notice applied.

The employer could not rely on the void clauses as evidence of the parties' intention to limit notice to the statutory minimum.

Counsel for the appellants failed to appear at the scheduled hearing of the appeal, and the Court proceeded to hear oral argument from the respondent only.

The appellants subsequently brought a motion for a re-hearing, claiming they were not notified of the hearing date.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that it is counsel's duty to ascertain inscribed hearing dates, not the Court's duty to inform them.

However, as a matter of indulgence and noting the unusual circumstances, the Court granted the re-hearing, ordering costs of the missed hearing and the motion to be paid personally by the appellants' counsel.

The appellant mining company sought to claim an investment tax credit for its 1974 taxation year under the Corporations Tax Act, 1972.

Because the credit could only be carried forward if the taxpayer had incurred a 'net loss' in previous years, the appellant attempted to amend its 1971 and 1972 tax returns to create such a loss by claiming capital cost allowance.

The federal authorities accepted the amendments, but the provincial Minister of Revenue refused.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the appellant met the qualifying provisions for the tax credit, the Minister was not obliged by statute or regulation to accept the amended returns, despite the federal administrative practice.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal which found its operations constituted a scheme of pyramid selling under the Combines Investigation Act and issued a prohibition order.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, adopting the reasons of the Federal Court of Appeal.