Mari A. Worfolk

The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of the Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986, arguing that the back-to-work legislation violated their freedom of association under section 2(d) and their right to liberty under section 7 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that earlier jurisprudence limiting the scope of freedom of association regarding the right to strike also applied to the right to liberty under section 7.

The Court further held that the penalty attached to the refusal to return to work was a strict liability offence intended to enforce the regulatory scheme.

Hydro called for tenders to erect transmission towers and string lines.

The tender documents stated the right-of-way would be cleared by others.

Checo's representative inspected the site and assumed further clearing would occur.

The parties entered into a contract incorporating the tender documents.

No further clearing occurred, causing Checo difficulties.

Checo sued for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that a plaintiff may sue concurrently in tort and contract unless the contract limits or negates the right to sue in tort.

The contract did not exclude Hydro's liability for negligent misrepresentation, nor did it negate its contractual duty to clear the right-of-way.

The appeal was dismissed and the cross-appeal allowed in part, with damages remitted to the trial division for reassessment.