Michel Legendre

The appellant regulator challenged judgments holding that pension plan clauses could limit employer funding obligations after partial termination.

During appellate proceedings, the legislature enacted declaratory amendments expressly reversing the interpretation adopted below.

The majority held declaratory legislation applies immediately to pending matters and that the dispute remained pending because substantive rights had been remitted for determination.

It concluded the administrative decision-maker had to apply the new provisions since prior appellate directions no longer reflected good law after legislative intervention.

The appeal was allowed, with dissenting reasons concluding appellate finality and res judicata barred reopening the legal issue.

The appellant's premises were searched by officials of the Ministère du revenu pursuant to an authorization approved by a judge of the Court of Sessions of the Peace under s. 40 of the Act respecting the Ministère du revenu.

The appellant challenged the authorization via a writ of evocation, arguing the information was too vague.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the authorizing judge exercises a judicial function and must carefully scrutinize the ministerial discretion.

Because the information did not disclose the facts underlying the informant's belief, the judge could not verify its reasonableness and failed in his duty by not requesting further information.

The search and seizure were declared null and void.

The appellant corporation was incorporated solely to purchase and hold land as a mandatary for two other companies.

The Minister of Revenue assessed the value of the land as 'paid-up capital' under the Corporation Tax Act and imposed a tax.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the appellant acted as a nominee (prête-nom) and its obligation to the true owners was not a debt.

Therefore, the value of the land did not constitute paid-up capital, and the assessment was vacated.