Mario Létourneau

The appellant's 19-year-old son was fatally shot by a police officer while fleeing arrest.

The appellant brought a civil liability action against the officer and his employer, claiming compensatory and exemplary damages.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that solatium doloris (grief and distress) is a compensable head of moral prejudice in Quebec civil law, and referred the matter back to the Court of Appeal to assess the quantum.

However, the Court dismissed the claims for interference with parental rights and for the victim's loss of life expectancy, ruling that the right to life is extinguished upon death and cannot be transmitted to heirs.

The Court also denied exemplary damages, finding that the officer's negligent conduct did not amount to 'intentional interference' under the Quebec Charter.

A police officer was dismissed by the disciplinary committee after being found guilty of shoplifting.

The appellant union filed a grievance, and the arbitrator substituted the dismissal with a thirteen-month suspension without pay, finding the original penalty too severe.

The respondent applied for a writ of evocation, which was denied by the Superior Court but granted by the Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the arbitrator did not exceed his jurisdiction under the Labour Code by imposing a penalty not explicitly available to the disciplinary committee, as his decision did not constitute an abuse of power amounting to fraud or flagrant injustice.

The appellant union appealed a decision dismissing its grievance for health insurance contributions from the employer.

The collective agreement required the employer to pay health insurance premiums.

However, the government's Health Insurance Act came into effect, voiding private contracts for insured services.

The union attempted to create a new fund for non-insured services, but it was not approved by the Pension Board until after the government plan took effect.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the employer's obligation was extinguished by the Act and the new fund could not legally operate before its approval.

The Court also held that the interlocutory judgment authorizing the writ of evocation did not constitute res judicata.