Julius H. Grey

The respondent moved to dismiss the appellant's appeal in the Court of Appeal for failure to file a factum within the fixed delay.

A judge of the Court of Appeal granted the motion pursuant to art. 505 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that the exercise of the judge's discretion was not reasonable given the circumstances.

The appellant was granted a peremptory delay of ten days to serve and file his factum.

The appellant appealed judgments declaring that the provisions regarding English instruction in Chapter VIII of the Charter of the French language (Bill 101) were inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that sections 72 and 73 of Bill 101 are inconsistent with section 23 of the Charter and are of no force or effect to the extent of the inconsistency.

The Court found that the limits imposed by Bill 101 on minority language educational rights could not be justified under section 1 of the Charter, as section 23 was specifically drafted to remedy the type of regime established by Bill 101.

The appellant, a Polish citizen, claimed Convention refugee status after overstaying his visitor's visa in Canada.

The Minister determined he was not a Convention refugee, and the Immigration Appeal Board refused to allow his application for redetermination to proceed under s. 71 of the Immigration Act, 1976.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed his application for review.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the appellant argued the Board applied too strict a test.

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the correct test under s. 71 is whether it is more likely than not (a balance of probabilities) that the applicant will be able to establish his claim at a full hearing, rejecting the lower threshold of a 'seriously arguable' case.

The appellant sought compensation from the Foreign Claims Commission for assets nationalized by Czechoslovakia.

The Commission and the Federal Court of Appeal denied her claim, finding her dominant nationality was Czechoslovakian, not Canadian, at the time of expropriation.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the Regulations defining 'Canadian citizen' were unambiguous and did not exclude dual citizens.

The Court applied the plain meaning rule, concluding that extraneous materials, such as international agreements or negotiators' reports, could not be used to interpret the clear terms of the domestic Regulations.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal affirming a deportation order.

The notice of appeal was filed in October 1976 but the appeal was not brought for hearing within the one-year period required by Rule 59 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the appeal was abandoned by virtue of Rule 59 and declined to order otherwise.