Marc-André Fabien

The Supreme Court considered whether article 35, paragraph 1 of Quebec's Code of Civil Procedure, which grants the Court of Québec exclusive jurisdiction over civil disputes valued at less than $85,000, is constitutional under section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The majority held that the provision unconstitutionally infringes on the core jurisdiction of the Superior Court by creating a prohibited parallel court, given the breadth of the jurisdiction, its exclusivity, the absence of accessible appeal to the superior court, and a monetary ceiling approximately 29 percent above the updated historical limit.

The second question, concerning whether the Court of Québec must apply judicial deference standards when hearing administrative appeals, was found to be moot following the combined effect of Vavilov and new legislation.

The Court dismissed the appeals but suspended the declaration of invalidity for 12 months to allow the Quebec legislature to enact a constitutional replacement.

The appellant franchisor operated a network of cleaning franchises in the Quebec region through a tripartite business model: the franchisor negotiated master cleaning contracts with clients, assigned those contracts (imperfectly) to franchisees who performed the actual cleaning, while remaining directly liable to clients for non-performance.

A parity committee claimed unpaid wages on behalf of a franchisee under the Act respecting collective agreement decrees.

The majority held that the trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error by failing to consider the tripartite nature of the business model, and that the franchisee was an "employee" and the franchisor a "professional employer" within the meaning of the Act.

The dissent would have restored the trial judge's decision, finding no reviewable error and that the imperfect assignment did not materially affect the franchisee's assumption of business risk, and that the franchisor did not exercise sufficient control to qualify as a professional employer.

The appellant airline brought a direct action in nullity to challenge a municipal by-law and subsequent resolutions that imposed a business tax.

The municipality's enabling legislation required the business tax to be imposed by by-law, but the municipality passed a by-law delegating the power to set the annual tax rate to itself by way of resolution.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the municipality exceeded its jurisdiction by authorizing itself to do by resolution what the legislature required to be done by by-law.

The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the by-law and resolutions, and ordered the municipality to reimburse the taxes paid.