L. Yves Fortier

The Governor in Council referred three questions to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the legality of a unilateral secession by Quebec.

The Court held that under the Constitution, unilateral secession is illegal.

However, the democratic principle dictates that a clear majority vote on a clear question in favour of secession would create a constitutional obligation on the rest of Canada to negotiate the terms of secession.

Under international law, the right to self-determination does not grant a right to unilateral secession to a constituent part of a democratic state that respects human rights and provides access to government.

Therefore, there is no conflict between domestic and international law.

Constitutional appeals challenging federal tobacco advertising and labelling restrictions.

The Court held that Parliament had authority under the criminal law power to legislate in relation to tobacco advertising, promotion, and warning requirements aimed at protecting public health.

A majority further held that the impugned advertising ban, trademark restrictions, and unattributed package warning provisions infringed freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter and were not justified under s. 1 because the government failed to demonstrate minimal impairment.

Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 of the Act were declared of no force or effect.

The corporate taxpayer was forced to sell its broadcasting division and invested the proceeds in short-term securities while seeking a new business to purchase.

The taxpayer actively managed this investment portfolio and claimed the interest earned as income from an active business to calculate its Canadian manufacturing and processing profits deduction.

The Minister reassessed the income as property income.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the taxpayer's appeal, applying a rebuttable presumption that income earned by a corporation in pursuit of its corporate objects is business income, and finding that the taxpayer's extensive investment activities constituted an active business.

The appellants, operators of sugar refineries in eastern Canada, were charged with conspiracy to enhance the price of sugar unreasonably and to lessen competition unduly under the Combines Investigation Act.

The trial judge acquitted them, finding that while there was a tacit agreement to maintain traditional market shares, it was not intended to lessen competition unduly but rather to avoid a price war.

The Court of Appeal reversed the acquittal on the second count.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the acquittals, holding that the trial judge did not err in law in concluding that the Crown failed to prove an agreement to lessen competition unduly.

The Court affirmed that conscious parallelism or a tacit agreement to maintain market shares does not necessarily amount to an undue lessening of competition.