Michel Y. Hélie

The appellant, convicted of a designated sexual offence, challenged the constitutionality of Christopher's Law, which mandates that sex offenders register with police.

He argued the law was ultra vires the province, rendered inoperative by federal paramountcy, and violated his rights under sections 7, 11, and 12 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the legislation was a valid exercise of provincial power aimed at community safety, did not conflict with federal law, and did not constitute punishment.

The court also held that the law did not violate section 7, as its requirements were not overbroad or grossly disproportionate to the objective of protecting the public.

The appellant consented to the dismissal of the appeal on the basis that there would be no costs in the Court of Appeal or the court below.

The Court of Appeal ordered the dismissal on consent.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Minister's decision to close the Collège des Grands Lacs, a francophone college.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application primarily due to the applicants' undue delay of 29 months in perfecting the application, which caused significant prejudice.

In the alternative, the court found that the Minister did not breach the unwritten constitutional principle of protection of minorities, as the college was failing and alternative francophone education was arranged.

The court also held that the Minister had the statutory authority to close the college and the decision was not patently unreasonable.

The respondents were entitled to costs of the appeal on a party and party basis.

The only outstanding issue was whether the Attorney General should be awarded costs of the cross-appeal on the section 15 issue, which the respondents had raised and lost.

The Court of Appeal awarded the respondents costs of the appeal against the Attorney General on a party and party basis, and awarded the Attorney General costs of the cross-appeal against the respondents on a party and party basis.

Appeal and cross-appeal arising from directions issued by a hospital restructuring body that would substantially reduce the services of Ontario's only francophone community hospital.

The Court of Appeal held that s. 16(3) of the Charter did not constitutionalize the institution's status and that s. 15 could not be used to supplement language rights not expressly conferred by the Charter.

However, the court held that the French Language Services Act had to be interpreted liberally and generously in light of the constitutional principle of respect for and protection of minorities, and that the impugned directions failed to respect that Act.

The court further held that, in exercising a public-interest discretion, the decision-maker was required to give serious weight and consideration to the institution's linguistic, cultural, and educational significance to the francophone minority.

Appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, the quashing order was affirmed, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration.

Inco Limited was charged with discharging untreated mine effluent into a creek and failing to report the discharge under the Ontario Water Resources Act.

The Crown appealed the summary conviction appeal judge's decision ordering a new trial on the basis that the trial court applied the incorrect test for water impairment.

Inco cross-appealed, arguing the charges should be stayed as an abuse of process because the environmental officer lacked statutory authority to conduct a warrantless inspection and violated the Charter rights of its employees.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal, confirming that the capacity to impair water quality must be assessed based on the nature and circumstances of the discharge.

The Court allowed Inco's cross-appeal, holding that while the corporation lacked standing to assert its employees' Charter rights, a new trial was required to determine whether the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to believe an offence was committed before conducting the inspection, which would dictate whether a warrant was required.

The appellants challenged the constitutionality of the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997, which created a new governance and funding model for Ontario school boards.

The appellants argued the legislation violated denominational education rights under s. 93(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867 by removing local taxation powers and limiting financial control.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the legislation did not prejudicially affect denominational rights, as it only regulated secular aspects of education and provided fair and equitable funding.

The Court also held that the delegation of taxation powers to the Minister of Finance was constitutional as it was express and unambiguous.

The appellants, anchor tenants in shopping centres, challenged the constitutionality of shortfall recovery provisions in the Municipal Act.

These provisions allowed commercial landlords to recoup property tax shortfalls from tenants.

The appellants argued this constituted indirect taxation, which is ultra vires the Province under section 92(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the provisions merely regulate the pre-existing transferability of a true land tax, which remains a valid direct tax.

The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of a municipal surtax on non-residential buildings imposed by the City of Montreal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that the surtax is a direct tax raised for provincial purposes within the meaning of s. 92(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court found that the taxes fall into the category of true land taxes.

The appellants challenged Ontario's education development charge regime, which required payments tied to new development to fund growth-related school capital costs.

The Court held that the regime was constitutionally valid and dismissed the appeal.

In the leading reasons, the charges were characterized as indirect taxes but upheld as ancillary to a comprehensive provincial land-use planning and regulatory scheme under ss. 92(9), (13) and (16) of the Constitution Act, 1867; concurring reasons would have upheld them instead as direct land taxes under s. 92(2).

The Court further held that the scheme did not prejudicially affect denominational school rights under s. 93(1), and that legislation falling within s. 93 was immune from Charter scrutiny.