Jeffrey W. Galway

The appellant banks sought a declaration that their promotion of certain insurance products authorized by the federal Bank Act was immune from Alberta's Insurance Act, which required them to obtain a provincial license.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the provincial legislation was valid under the province's property and civil rights power.

The Court rejected the application of interjurisdictional immunity, finding that the promotion of insurance is not vital or essential to the core of banking.

The Court also found no operational conflict or frustration of federal purpose to trigger the doctrine of federal paramountcy.

The appeal was dismissed, meaning the banks must comply with the provincial insurance regulations.

Appeal concerning whether terminated members of a defined benefit pension plan are entitled to immediate distribution of a proportional share of actuarial surplus on a partial wind-up.

The Court held that the applicable standard of review of the Financial Services Tribunal’s interpretation of s. 70(6) of the Pension Benefits Act was correctness.

Applying the modern principle of statutory interpretation to the text, scheme, and purpose of the legislation, the Court concluded that s. 70(6) requires the realization and distribution of the affected members’ pro rata share of surplus as of the effective date of partial wind-up, if they are otherwise entitled.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The City of Toronto appealed a decision declaring parts of a municipal by-law unconstitutional.

The by-law prohibited anyone at a Collision Reporting Centre from recommending an auto repair shop to motor vehicle owners.

The application judge found this violated the insurers' freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter and was not justified under s. 1.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the by-law's objectives of protecting vulnerable accident victims from business pressures and preserving the impartiality of the centres were pressing and substantial.

The Court found the limitation on commercial expression was minimally impairing and justified under s. 1.

Appeals concerning whether labour relations at a provincially owned utility's nuclear generating stations were governed by provincial or federal labour legislation.

The majority held that Parliament's declaratory power under s. 92(10)(c) and s. 91(29) validly brought the nuclear facilities within exclusive federal jurisdiction, and that labour relations were integral to the operation and management of those declared works.

A majority also held that atomic energy is a matter of national concern under the peace, order and good government power, and that labour relations at the nuclear facilities formed part of that jurisdiction.

The argument that provincial authority over electrical generation under s. 92A(1)(c) displaced federal authority was rejected.

The appeals were dismissed and the Canada Labour Code was held to apply to employees employed on or in connection with the nuclear facilities.