Kathryn N. Feldman

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, large apple producers, challenged the authority of the Agricultural Stabilization Board to set minimum and maximum limits on the quantities of apples eligible for subsidy payments under the Agricultural Stabilization Act.

The Federal Court of Appeal held that the Board had the implicit authority to set such limits.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's broad duties and powers under the Act were sufficient to enable it to set quantity limits for subsidy payments in the interest of a workable price stabilization program, especially in the absence of any preclusion in the Act or regulations.