Gina S. Brannan

The applicants sought a stay of a ruling by the Commissioner of the Cornwall Public Inquiry and a Divisional Court decision pending an application for leave to appeal.

The Commissioner had ruled he had jurisdiction to hear evidence from two witnesses regarding alleged police failure to respond to a sexual assault complaint.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious question to be tried, irreparable harm to the applicants' reputation if the evidence was heard publicly before the appeal, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.

The motion for a stay was granted and the leave application expedited.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received a weekly income benefit from the insurer.

After returning to part-time work, the insurer deducted 80 per cent of her post-accident earnings from her weekly benefit.

The applicant disputed this calculation, arguing the deduction should be from her pre-accident gross earnings.

The arbitrator held that under section 15 of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule, the insurer is entitled to deduct 80 per cent of post-accident earnings directly from the weekly benefit payable.

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.