Marie-France Major

A power producer sought judicial intervention to force renegotiation of a long-term fixed-price electricity contract after market changes generated large resale profits for the purchaser.

The Court held Quebec civil law did not provide a basis to imply a duty to renegotiate, to apply unforeseeability in these circumstances, or to redistribute contractual benefits through good faith or equity.

The agreement allocated price fluctuation risk and remained enforceable as written.

The appeal was dismissed, with a dissent that would have recognized a relational-contract duty to cooperate.

In a builders’ risk insurance appeal, the appellants sought coverage for replacing windows scratched during post-installation cleaning performed by a contractor.

The insurers relied on an exclusion for the cost of making good faulty workmanship.

The Court held that, in this context, the exclusion removes only the cost of redoing the faulty work itself, while resulting physical damage remains covered.

The Court also held that interpretation of this standard form contract was reviewable for correctness in the circumstances.

The appeals were allowed with costs and the trial judgment was restored.

The Court allowed the appeal and restored the Federal Court decision dismissing the constitutional challenge to a First Nation election rule requiring Grade 12 education for candidates.

The claimant failed to show that the requirement had a disproportionate discriminatory impact on an enumerated or analogous ground, including age or residence on reserve, because the evidentiary record was insufficient.

The appellant challenged a conviction for failing to report a blasting incident that propelled fly-rock into the air and damaged nearby property.

The Court held that the reporting duty under the Environmental Protection Act is triggered where a contaminant is discharged out of the normal course of events and there is or may be an adverse effect, without requiring proof of actual impairment to the natural environment.

It emphasized the statute’s broad remedial purpose and confirmed that each branch of the adverse-effect definition independently engages the duty to notify the regulator.

On the facts, the discharge caused significant property damage and potential serious harm, requiring immediate reporting.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, a mother and infant who suffered brain damage during a vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC), appealed a Court of Appeal order setting aside a trial judgment due to the trial judge's extensive copying of the plaintiffs' submissions.

The Supreme Court held that incorporating the material of others in reasons for judgment does not, without more, require the decision to be set aside; the presumption of judicial integrity is rebutted only where copying would lead a reasonable person to conclude the judge did not independently consider the issues.

On the merits, the Court affirmed liability against the prenatal obstetrician for failure to obtain informed consent to VBAC, but set aside findings of liability against the hospital, nurse, and other physicians for lack of causation.

The Crown appealed as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada from the Manitoba Court of Appeal's decision upholding the respondent's acquittal on a charge of uttering threats to cause death contrary to s. 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The accused had repeatedly told his ex-girlfriend he would kill her if she proceeded with an abortion.

The trial judge found a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused intended his words to intimidate, considering the recipient's testimony that she did not take the threats seriously.

The majority (4-3) held the trial judge correctly stated the law and properly considered the recipient's evidence as context for assessing mens rea.

The dissent would have allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred by making the recipient's perception the determinative factor in assessing intent.