Marcel Cinq-Mars

The Quebec government referred questions to the Court of Appeal regarding the constitutionality of the Education Act (Bill 107), which proposed restructuring the province's school boards from a denominational basis (Catholic and Protestant) to a linguistic basis (French and English).

Various school boards and associations appealed the Court of Appeal's decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court held that the creation of linguistic school boards and the dissolution of existing denominational boards did not prejudicially affect the rights and privileges protected by s. 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, provided that the right to dissent and the existence of confessional schools in Montreal and Quebec City were maintained.

The Court upheld the legislation's mechanisms for exercising dissent, allocating property, and managing school taxes.

The insured subscribed to a group life insurance policy and named his wife as beneficiary under the Husbands and Parents Life Insurance Act.

Years later, after the Civil Code was amended to allow gifts between spouses and the insurance policy was renewed, the insured attempted to revoke his wife as beneficiary and name a third party.

Following the insured's death, the wife sought a declaration that she was entitled to the proceeds.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the revocation was invalid because the special Act, which restricted revocation to preferred beneficiaries, continued to apply with peremptory force despite the Civil Code amendments and the renewal of the policies.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed as of right from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal allowing an appeal from a verdict of acquittal and ordering a new trial on charges of manslaughter following a mine accident.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the trial judge erred in his instructions in law to the jury and that a new trial was properly ordered.

In 1970, the Crown expropriated immovables under the Code of Civil Procedure, which allowed unilateral discontinuance.

In 1973, a new Expropriation Act required the Expropriation Tribunal's authorization to discontinue.

In 1979, the Crown attempted to unilaterally discontinue the 1970 expropriations.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the new Act applied immediately to the Crown and did not constitute retroactive legislation.

The Crown had no vested right to unilaterally discontinue, as it was merely an unexercised option.

The appeal was dismissed, meaning the Crown required the Tribunal's authorization to discontinue.