John W. Brown

The appellants challenged a provincial commission of inquiry into alleged dealings between named private individuals, a corporation, and public officials.

The majority held that, in pith and substance, the inquiry functioned as a substitute police investigation and preliminary inquiry into a specific Criminal Code offence, thereby intruding on Parliament's exclusive jurisdiction over criminal law and criminal procedure under s. 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The naming of private individuals, the close mirroring of s. 121 of the Criminal Code, and the inquiry's coercive powers were found cumulatively to render the Order in Council ultra vires.

The Court therefore allowed the appeal and did not decide the remaining Charter issues.

The appellants, managers of a corporation suspected of price discrimination, were ordered to appear and testify under oath pursuant to s. 17 of the Combines Investigation Act.

They sought a declaration that s. 17 violates s. 7 of the Charter.

Relying on the concurrently released decision in Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 17 does not infringe s. 7 of the Charter.

Multiple appeals and a Crown appeal challenged Ontario's Sunday retail closing regime under division of powers and the Charter.

The Court held the legislation was intra vires provincial authority and that it had a secular common-pause-day purpose, not a religious one.

A majority held the Act infringed the freedom of religion of Saturday-observing retailers by imposing a non-trivial economic burden, but that the infringement was justified under s. 1 because the legislation pursued a pressing social objective and included a constitutionally sufficient exemption scheme.

The s. 7 challenge failed, and no answer was given on s. 15 because it was not yet in force at the relevant time.

The retailer appeals were dismissed and the Crown's appeal against the kosher retailer was allowed.

The respondent Crown corporations were charged under the Combines Investigation Act with conspiring to unduly lessen competition in the uranium industry.

They sought prohibition orders to prevent the Provincial Court from proceeding, arguing they were immune from prosecution as agents of the Crown.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Combines Investigation Act does not bind the Crown.

Furthermore, because both corporations were statutorily designated as agents of the Crown 'for all its purposes' and were acting within their authorized corporate objects, they were entitled to Crown immunity.

The appeals by the Crown were dismissed.