Mark Jeffrey Phillips

The Court considered whether victims compensated under Quebec's no-fault automobile scheme could still sue third parties for subsequent medical or police faults causing aggravated or separate injuries.

The majority held the statutory causal link is sui generis and satisfied where there is a plausible, logical, and sufficiently close connection between the accident, subsequent events, and resulting injury.

On that interpretation, the claims remained within the compensation scheme and civil actions were barred by section 83.57.

A dissent would have allowed actions for truly separate injuries caused by later faults.

Both appeals were dismissed.

A private Catholic high school challenged the Minister’s refusal to exempt its proposed alternative ethics and religious culture program.

The Court held that requiring Loyola to teach Catholicism and Catholic ethics from a neutral perspective disproportionately limited religious freedom.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the Minister’s decision, and remitted the matter for reconsideration.

The Court also held that teaching about other religions and their ethics could still be required in a neutral and respectful manner.

The Supreme Court considered whether provisions of the Civil Code of Quebec limiting family patrimony, compensatory allowance, partnership of acquests, and spousal support to married and civil union spouses infringed s. 15(1) of the Charter by excluding de facto spouses.

A 5-4 majority on s. 15(1) found the exclusion violated equality rights based on marital status.

However, the Chief Justice found the infringement justified under s. 1, joining the four judges who found no s. 15(1) violation, resulting in a 5-4 decision upholding the constitutionality of the impugned provisions.

The dissent would have struck down some or all of the provisions as unjustified discrimination against de facto spouses.

Parents challenged a school board refusal to exempt their children from Quebec's mandatory Ethics and Religious Culture course, alleging violations of religious freedom and improper external influence.

The Court held that sincere belief alone is insufficient, and objective proof of interference is required.

On this record, the parents failed to prove the program infringed freedom of religion, and the refusal to exempt was upheld.

Following an arbitration decision regarding statutory accident benefits, both the applicant and the insurer claimed their arbitration expenses under subsection 282(11) of the Insurance Act.

The arbitrator denied both claims.

The insurer was largely successful but failed to make any settlement offer, which undercut the conciliatory nature of the process.

The applicant had a comparatively small degree of success and made an inflated settlement offer that did not encourage an amicable resolution.

Consequently, neither party was awarded expenses.

Following an arbitration decision regarding statutory accident benefits, both parties sought their expenses of the hearing.

The insurer argued it was entirely successful on the issues at arbitration and should be awarded expenses based on the result.

The applicant argued the insurer prolonged the proceedings by failing to respond to a treatment plan until the final day of the hearing and by ignoring a written offer to settle.

The arbitrator found that success is only one criterion to be weighed, and that the insurer's failure to comply with the Schedule and respond to the settlement offer prolonged the proceeding.

The arbitrator ordered that each party bear its own expenses.

The applicant was struck by a motor vehicle and subsequently underwent arthroscopic knee surgery.

She sought payment for $2,261.56 in physiotherapy treatment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the claim, relying on an insurer's examination which concluded the knee surgery was unrelated to the accident and the therapy was unnecessary.

While the arbitrator found the knee injury was caused by the accident, the application was dismissed because the treating chiropractor's records did not demonstrate an understanding of the applicant's knee condition, rendering the treatment neither reasonable nor necessary.

Following a decision on statutory accident benefits where the insurer was found entitled to its reasonable expenses, the parties disagreed on the quantum of the insurer's Bill of Costs.

The insurer sought $6,867.08 in legal fees based on 110.7 hours of preparation and hearing time, plus disbursements.

The arbitrator found the hours excessive for a straightforward two-day hearing involving no complex legal issues.

Applying a 1.25:1 ratio for preparation to hearing time, the arbitrator reduced the legal fees and struck unsupported disbursements for courier, parking, and court reporting services.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer $4,861.18 in expenses.