John T. Morin

The appellants sought judicial review of a decision by the Canadian Import Tribunal, which found that the subsidization of U.S. grain corn caused material injury to Canadian producers.

The Tribunal interpreted the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA) in light of the GATT Subsidies Code, considering potential imports as well as actual imports.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the applications for judicial review.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that the Tribunal's interpretation of its constitutive legislation was not patently unreasonable and that it was appropriate for the Tribunal to consult the GATT in interpreting SIMA.

The appellant corporation financed a plant in the Philippines using foreign currency to comply with Philippine law.

To minimize risks of devaluation and currency controls, the appellant made U.S. dollar deposits with commercial banks, which then made peso loans to the appellant's Philippine branch.

The appellant claimed a dividend refund under the Income Tax Act, including the interest from the U.S. dollar deposits as 'foreign investment income'.

The Minister reassessed the return, characterizing the interest as income from property used or held in the course of carrying on a business.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the property was employed and risked in the taxpayer's business to fulfill a mandatory condition precedent to trade, and thus was not foreign investment income.

The appellant, a professional football player, was cut from the respondent's team but continued to receive his guaranteed salary.

He subsequently signed a contract to play for another team in a different league without the respondent's permission.

When the new team folded, the appellant sued the respondent for the balance of his guaranteed salary.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's signing with another team constituted a breach of his contractual arrangement with the respondent, thereby relieving the respondent of any further obligation to pay the guaranteed salary.

The appellant challenged a municipal by-law requiring public garages to erect a fence or plant a hedge along property lines not adjacent to a street.

The municipality enacted the by-law under its authority to license and regulate public garages.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the requirement was an invalid restriction on land use rather than a valid regulation of the licensed business, as it related to esthetic considerations and external appearance rather than the character or conduct of the business.

The appeal was allowed and the impugned provision was struck down as ultra vires.