L’Heureux‑Dubé J.

The respondent was dismissed from his employment after his daughter and wife accused his employer (who was his brother-in-law) of sexual abuse.

The respondent filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of marital and family status.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the enumerated grounds of marital and family status in the Ontario Human Rights Code are broad enough to encompass discrimination based on the particular identity of a complainant's spouse or family member.

The Court found that the respondent was arbitrarily disadvantaged based on stereotypical assumptions about his familial affiliations, constituting prohibited discrimination.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondents, staff lawyers with the federal Department of Justice, sued the federal Crown for breach of contract regarding salary disparities.

During discovery, the government claimed Cabinet confidentiality over certain documents under s. 39 of the Canada Evidence Act, including some previously listed as producible.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 39 provides absolute protection once information is validly certified by the Clerk of the Privy Council, and the common law concept of waiver does not apply.

The Court also upheld the constitutionality of s. 39, finding it does not impermissibly infringe on the core jurisdiction of superior courts or unwritten constitutional principles.

The appellants, Air Ontario pilots, brought an action against the respondents, Air Canada pilots, for breach of contract based on the union constitution after the respondents refused to implement an arbitration award integrating their seniority lists.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the historical legal fiction of a web of contracts between individual union members is no longer necessary or practical.

Instead, the Court recognized that a trade union is a legal entity capable of entering into a contract of membership with each individual member, and therefore, union members cannot be held personally liable to one another for breaching the union constitution.

The representative plaintiffs and 229 other investors purchased debentures in Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. under the federal Business Immigration Program.

After the investment failed, the plaintiffs commenced a class action alleging breach of fiduciary duty by the defendants.

The defendants applied to strike the representative claim under Rule 42 of the Alberta Rules of Court.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the defendants' appeal, holding that the class action should be allowed to proceed as the class was capable of clear definition, there were common issues of law and fact, success for one meant success for all, and the representatives adequately represented the class.

The Court allowed the plaintiffs' cross-appeal, finding that individualized discovery of all class members was premature.

The appellant municipality contracted out garbage collection to subcontractors.

The union filed motions under s. 45 of the Labour Code to have the certification and collective agreement transferred to the subcontractors.

The labour commissioner and Labour Court granted the motions, finding a partial transfer of the operation of the undertaking.

The Superior Court quashed the decision, but the Court of Appeal restored it.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Labour Court's decision was not patently unreasonable and that s. 45 could apply to subcontracting where the transferee receives a right to operate part of the transferor's undertaking with sufficient autonomy.

Trinity Western University (TWU), a private Christian institution, applied to the British Columbia College of Teachers (BCCT) for permission to assume full responsibility for its teacher education program.

The BCCT denied the application, arguing it was contrary to the public interest because TWU's Community Standards, which prohibited 'homosexual behaviour', were discriminatory.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the BCCT had jurisdiction to consider discriminatory practices, its decision was unjustified.

The Court found that the BCCT failed to properly reconcile the equality rights of public school students with the freedom of religion of TWU students.

Absent concrete evidence that training teachers at TWU fosters discrimination in public schools, the freedom to hold religious beliefs must be respected.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the order of mandamus directing the BCCT to approve the program.

The appellants acquired interests in a foreign partnership that had incurred substantial potential losses from a condominium project.

The original partners withdrew, and the appellants sold the condominium project back to them at fair market value, realizing a large loss which they claimed on their Canadian income tax.

The appellants also continued to profitably manage a low-rent apartment building that was an ancillary asset of the partnership.

The Minister disallowed the losses, and the lower courts upheld this decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that the three essential ingredients of a valid partnership—carrying on business, in common, with a view to profit—were met, notwithstanding that the primary motivation was to acquire a tax loss.

The accused was charged with possession of child pornography under s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

He challenged the constitutionality of the provision, arguing it violated his right to freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the prohibition on possession of child pornography infringes s. 2(b), it is largely justified under s. 1 as a reasonable limit to protect children from harm.

However, the Court found the law overbroad in two peripheral applications: self-created expressive material held exclusively for personal use, and private recordings of lawful sexual activity created by or depicting the accused for private use.

The Court read in exceptions for these two categories and upheld the law, allowing the Crown's appeal and remitting the matter for trial.

The respondent challenged the constitutionality of third-party spending limits in the Canada Elections Act and obtained an interlocutory injunction restraining their enforcement during a federal election.

The Attorney General of Canada applied to the Supreme Court of Canada for a stay of the injunction.

The Court granted the stay, holding that the balance of convenience favours maintaining duly enacted legislation pending a complete constitutional review, as it must be assumed to serve a valid public purpose.

The Province of Alberta challenged the constitutionality of the federal Firearms Act, which required the licensing and registration of all firearms, including ordinary rifles and shotguns.

Alberta argued the law fell under provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the legislation as a valid exercise of Parliament's criminal law power.

The Court found the pith and substance of the law was directed to enhancing public safety by controlling access to firearms through prohibitions and penalties, and its effects on provincial jurisdiction were merely incidental.