Louis Crête

The Canada Labour Relations Board ordered several airlines to produce documents during an investigation of a union's application for amendment of certification.

The airlines refused, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to compel document production outside a formal hearing.

The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the Board's order.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Board's appeal, holding that under section 118(a) of the Canada Labour Code, the Board's power to compel the production of documents may only be exercised in the context of a formal hearing.

Three appeals were brought by labour commissioners, the Labour Court, and an employee association against judgments authorizing writs of evocation.

The writs were sought by employees who were denied the right to be present and heard during a labour commissioner's investigation into the definition of a bargaining unit.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeals, holding that under section 32 of the Labour Code, employees are not 'interested parties' regarding the description of the bargaining unit and therefore do not have the right to be present or heard at that stage of the investigation.

The Court also confirmed that the commissioners and the Labour Court had standing to appeal in order to defend their jurisdiction.

The Attorney General of Quebec appealed a decision refusing a writ of prohibition against a Youth Court judge who proceeded with a robbery charge against a juvenile under the federal Juvenile Delinquents Act and Criminal Code.

The appellant argued that the provincial Youth Protection Act precluded such proceedings unless brought in accordance with its provisions.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that section 455 of the Criminal Code is valid federal legislation and that the relevant sections of the provincial Youth Protection Act are rendered inoperative in this context due to paramountcy, as they conflict with the valid federal criminal process.

The appellant obtained writs of evocation from decisions of the Professions Tribunal, which had quashed a Discipline Committee's decision.

The Superior Court held that the wide powers conferred upon the Professions Tribunal, combined with privative clauses, offended s. 96 of the B.N.A. Act by effectively creating a s. 96 court.

The Court of Appeal reversed this decision.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada held that a provincial legislature cannot constitutionally insulate a statutory tribunal from curial review of its decisions on questions of jurisdiction.

The appeal was allowed and the Superior Court judgments restored.

The Attorney General of Quebec applied for a rehearing to determine whether section 133 of the British North America Act applies to delegated legislation, such as regulations of statutory bodies, municipalities, and school boards.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that section 133 applies to regulations enacted by the provincial government, ministers, and agencies subject to government approval, as well as to court rules of practice.

However, the Court concluded that section 133 does not apply to municipal or school body by-laws, even if they are subject to government approval.