2 total
Quebec courts have jurisdiction over transboundary Aboriginal rights claims against companies domiciled in Quebec.
Two Innu First Nations filed suit in the Quebec Superior Court against mining companies operating a megaproject straddling Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador, seeking a permanent injunction, $900 million in damages, and declarations recognizing Aboriginal title and other Aboriginal rights over a traditional territory called Nitassinan.
The Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador moved to strike allegations relating to land situated in that province, arguing Quebec courts lacked jurisdiction.
The majority held that the claim was a non-classical mixed action involving sui generis Aboriginal rights (not real rights in the civil law sense) and personal obligations, and that Quebec courts had jurisdiction over both aspects under arts. 3134 and 3148 C.C.Q. because the defendant mining companies were domiciled in Montreal.
The dissent would have allowed the appeal, finding that Aboriginal title and other Aboriginal rights are real rights for private international law purposes, that art. 3152 C.C.Q. deprived Quebec courts of jurisdiction over claims relating to land outside Quebec, and that allowing such jurisdiction would seriously undermine Canadian federalism and ultimately impede access to justice for Indigenous claimants.
Legislation deferring pay equity to address a severe provincial financial crisis is justified under s. 1.
The provincial government signed a Pay Equity Agreement in 1988 to address systemic gender discrimination in the health care sector.
In 1991, facing a severe financial crisis, the government enacted the Public Sector Restraint Act, which deferred the pay equity adjustments and extinguished arrears.
The appellant union grieved the legislation.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the legislation infringed the equality rights of female hospital workers under s. 15(1) of the Charter, the infringement was justified under s. 1 due to the exceptional financial crisis.
The Court also rejected the Court of Appeal's suggestion to add an explicit separation of powers step to the Oakes test.