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.