4 total
Legislative amendments reducing student loan interest exemption periods do not retroactively alter existing loan contracts.
The appellant obtained student loans under the Quebec Act respecting financial assistance for students.
His loan certificate provided for an interest exemption period after completing his studies.
Subsequent legislative amendments reduced and then eliminated this exemption period.
The financial institution charged the appellant interest based on the new legislation.
The appellant brought a class action against the government.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the appellant had a vested right to the interest exemption period specified in his contract, and the legislative amendments did not clearly indicate an intention to interfere with vested rights or apply retroactively to existing contracts.
The appeal was allowed.
Municipality breached procedural fairness by failing to provide reasons for refusing a rezoning application.
The appellants, a congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, sought to build a place of worship in the respondent municipality.
After their initial application for a zoning amendment was refused with reasons, they made subsequent applications for a different lot, which the municipality summarily refused without providing reasons.
The appellants sought mandamus, arguing the refusal violated their freedom of religion and procedural fairness.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the municipality breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide reasons for its subsequent refusals.
The matter was remitted to the municipality for reconsideration.
Human Rights Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over benefits dispute falling within exclusive jurisdiction of social affairs commission.
The complainant, while on maternity leave, was denied social assistance benefits under the APPORT program because her employment insurance benefits were not considered income from employment.
She filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on sex and pregnancy.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Human Rights Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute.
The essential character of the dispute concerned eligibility for benefits under the Income Security Act, over which the Commission des affaires sociales has exclusive jurisdiction, including the authority to apply the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
Human Rights Tribunal has jurisdiction over discrimination complaint regarding the formation of a collective agreement.
The teachers' unions entered into a modification of a collective agreement with the province that affected a minority group composed primarily of younger and less experienced teachers.
The younger teachers complained to the Human Rights Commission that the agreement discriminated against them, violating the equality guarantee of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
The Commission brought the matter before the Human Rights Tribunal.
The respondents filed a motion asking the Tribunal to decline jurisdiction on the ground that the labour arbitrator possessed exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Human Rights Tribunal had jurisdiction over the dispute, as the essential character of the dispute engaged matters pertaining more to alleged discrimination in the formation and validity of the agreement than to its interpretation and application.
