Mario Bouchard

The appellant, a police officer, was charged with major service offences and appeared before the Deputy Chief of Police for trial.

He argued that the proceedings violated his right to an independent and impartial tribunal under section 11(d) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that section 11 does not apply to police disciplinary proceedings because they are neither criminal in nature nor involve true penal consequences, such as imprisonment.

The appellant sought authorization to bring a class action against the respondent for failing to deliver cutlery ordered from a newspaper advertisement.

The Superior Court allowed the motion, but the Court of Appeal reversed it, finding the appellant could not adequately represent the group.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion for authorization must be dismissed because the conclusion sought—specific performance for delivery of an unascertained good (cutlery)—is unenforceable under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Following a bus drivers' strike, the appellant sought authorization to bring a class action against the transit commission for a refund of bus passes and damages.

The Superior Court authorized the action, but the Court of Appeal reversed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that under art. 1003(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the facts alleged need only show a 'colour of right' to justify the conclusions sought, rather than requiring a determination on the merits in law.

The Court also found that the transit commission had a legal obligation of conveyance to users under art. 1673 of the Civil Code, and that commencing the suit constituted putting the respondent in default.