L’Heureux-Dubé

The appellant town terminated its contract with a transportation company for the operation of its municipal transit system and commenced operating the system itself, hiring a significant number of the company's laid-off workers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that a 'sale of a business' had occurred under s. 64 of the Labour Relations Act, binding the town as a successor employer.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the town's appeal, holding that the Board's finding of a nexus between the company and the town was not patently unreasonable given their historical and functional connection.

The British Columbia Securities Commission ordered a registered broker to produce records to assist the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in an investigation.

The broker challenged the constitutional validity of the provincial legislation authorizing the order, arguing it was ultra vires the province.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the legislation was intra vires the province under its power over property and civil rights, as its dominant purpose was the enforcement of domestic securities law through reciprocal cooperation and uncovering foreign violations by domestic registrants.

The respondent company deposited a large pile of soil on its leased property, prompting complaints from neighbours about dust and noise.

The appellant municipality passed resolutions under s. 936 of the Municipal Act declaring the soil a nuisance and ordering its removal.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the municipality had the jurisdiction to declare the soil a nuisance, interpreting the statute purposively.

The Court further held that while jurisdictional questions of municipalities are reviewed on a standard of correctness, their intra vires decisions are reviewed on a deferential standard of patent unreasonableness.

The municipality's decision was found not to be patently unreasonable.

The respondent employee suffered a back injury in the course of her employment and subsequently received substandard medical treatment from a doctor, leading to an action in negligence.

The Workers' Compensation Board issued a certificate barring the action under section 11 of the Workers' Compensation Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, adopting the dissenting reasons of Donald J.A. in the court below, and restored the Board's certificate barring the action.

The appellant suffered a lung injury in a mining accident and subsequently suffered a second lung injury during biopsy surgery intended to assist in the diagnosis and treatment of the work injury.

The appellant brought an action in negligence against the doctors and the health board.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions that the action was barred by workers' compensation legislation.

The appellants, representing French linguistic minority parents in the Summerside area, requested a local French language school for their children under s. 23 of the Charter.

The French Language Board approved the request, but the Minister of Education refused, offering instead to bus the children to an existing French school 28 to 46 kilometres away.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Minister's decision was unconstitutional.

Where numbers warrant, s. 23 grants the minority language community the right to management and control over their educational facilities, including their location.

The Minister's discretion is subordinate to the Charter and the minority's right to preserve and promote its language and culture.