Neil Finkelstein

The appellant appealed a summary judgment requiring it to pay $135.5 million in cash to fulfill its obligations under a letter agreement.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by restricting payment to cash rather than allowing payment in shares of certain corporations as provided in the agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the respondent was entitled to reject the offered shares as not being of equivalent value, and finding that allowing payment in shares years after the deadline would inappropriately rewrite the agreement.

The appellant administrative body appealed a Divisional Court order quashing its refusal to decline jurisdiction over a human rights complaint challenging the recitation of the Lord's Prayer during the daily opening exercise of the Legislative Assembly.

The Court of Appeal held that the Assembly's Standing Orders and acts done pursuant to them fall within the constitutionally protected sphere of parliamentary privilege concerning exclusive control over internal proceedings.

Applying the parliamentary privilege framework from Supreme Court authority, the court held that once the category of privilege is established, neither courts nor administrative bodies may review particular exercises within that category for compliance with human rights legislation.

The court also held that the Commission's refusal to decline jurisdiction was a reviewable decision attracting correctness review.

Appeal dismissed without costs.

The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario applied for judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission to investigate a complaint regarding the reading of the Lord's Prayer during the Assembly's daily proceedings.

The Speaker argued that the Commission lacked jurisdiction due to parliamentary privilege.

The Divisional Court granted the application, holding that the Standing Orders governing the Assembly's proceedings fall within the scope of parliamentary privilege and are immune from outside investigation by the Commission.

In a winding-up of a charitable corporation facing extensive institutional abuse claims, the liquidator sought appellate clarification on whether assets allegedly held on special purpose charitable trusts were shielded from tort creditors whose claims arose elsewhere within the charity’s operations.

The court held that Canadian law recognizes no charitable immunity from tort liability and rejects any trust-fund theory that would immunize charitable assets from execution.

In the winding-up context, all assets of the charitable corporation, whether beneficially owned or held on trust for charitable purposes, were available to satisfy legitimate tort claims.

The court also struck out a paragraph of the order suggesting it was not intended to affect related British Columbia proceedings, while confirming that the British Columbia court remained free to make its own factual findings on ownership issues.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Newfoundland Court of Appeal regarding the validity of an automobile insurance policy.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, adopting the reasons of the trial judge and the dissenting appellate judge.

The Court held that the insurance policy was valid and binding in law, had not been transferred or cancelled, and that there was no novation releasing the insurer from its obligations.

The appellant airlines purchased liquor abroad and stored it in customs bonded warehouses in Ontario for use on domestic and international flights.

The provincial liquor authorities charged markups and gallonage fees on the liquor.

The airlines sought restitution of the fees and a declaration that the provincial liquor monopoly was constitutionally inapplicable to their federal aeronautical undertaking.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the liquor was subject to the federal Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act and that the provincial monopoly applied, as providing liquor is not an integral part of an aeronautical undertaking.

However, the Court ordered the provincial authorities to make full restitution of the gallonage fees wrongfully collected under an inapplicable licensing regime.

The Director of Investigation and Research applied for an order requiring Southam to divest itself of several community newspapers, alleging the acquisitions substantially lessened competition in the print advertising market.

The Competition Tribunal found a substantial lessening of competition only in the real estate print advertising market on the North Shore and ordered divestment of either the North Shore News or the Real Estate Weekly.

The Federal Court of Appeal overturned the Tribunal's market definition on the merits but upheld the remedy.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal on the merits, establishing that the Tribunal's decisions on questions of mixed law and fact are subject to a standard of reasonableness simpliciter due to its economic expertise, and restored the Tribunal's original decision.

The appeal on the remedy was dismissed.

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.

A public school teacher publicly made anti-Semitic statements during his off-duty time.

A Jewish parent filed a human rights complaint alleging the school board discriminated by failing to discipline the teacher, thereby condoning his views and creating a poisoned educational environment.

The human rights board of inquiry found discrimination and ordered the school board to place the teacher on leave, appoint him to a non-teaching position if available, or terminate his employment, and to terminate him immediately if he published anti-Semitic materials in the future.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the school board discriminated and that the order to remove the teacher from his teaching position infringed his freedom of expression and religion but was justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

However, the permanent ban on publishing was not minimally impairing and was severed.

The applicants brought jurisdictional dispute applications regarding the assignment of work for the fabrication and installation of a monorail at the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1000 raised a preliminary constitutional challenge, arguing that labour relations at the nuclear facility fall under federal jurisdiction.

The Board applied the functional test and determined that while the production of nuclear energy and its attendant safety concerns are within federal jurisdiction, the fabrication and installation of the monorail is not integral to the federal undertaking.

Having found it had jurisdiction, the Board directed Ontario Hydro to assign the work to the applicants based on collective agreements and historical practice.

Appeals concerning whether labour relations at a provincially owned utility's nuclear generating stations were governed by provincial or federal labour legislation.

The majority held that Parliament's declaratory power under s. 92(10)(c) and s. 91(29) validly brought the nuclear facilities within exclusive federal jurisdiction, and that labour relations were integral to the operation and management of those declared works.

A majority also held that atomic energy is a matter of national concern under the peace, order and good government power, and that labour relations at the nuclear facilities formed part of that jurisdiction.

The argument that provincial authority over electrical generation under s. 92A(1)(c) displaced federal authority was rejected.

The appeals were dismissed and the Canada Labour Code was held to apply to employees employed on or in connection with the nuclear facilities.

The complainant alleged that the respondent insurance company discriminated against young, single, male drivers by charging them higher automobile insurance premiums than other groups.

The respondent conceded a prima facie infringement of the Human Rights Code but argued the distinction was based on reasonable and bona fide grounds under s. 21.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the discriminatory practice was reasonable because it was based on sound and accepted insurance practice and there was no practical alternative available to the industry at the time.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, managers of a corporation suspected of price discrimination, were ordered to appear and testify under oath pursuant to s. 17 of the Combines Investigation Act.

They sought a declaration that s. 17 violates s. 7 of the Charter.

Relying on the concurrently released decision in Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 17 does not infringe s. 7 of the Charter.

The Crown commenced a civil action for forfeiture against the respondent corporation under the Customs Act for making false declarations.

The Crown sought to examine an officer of the respondent for discovery.

The respondent argued it was protected from discovery by common law privilege and section 11(c) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the common law privilege against self-incrimination in forfeiture actions was abrogated by the Canada Evidence Act and modern discovery rules.

Furthermore, the Court ruled that a corporation cannot be a 'witness' and therefore cannot claim the protection of section 11(c) of the Charter.

The Crown's appeal was allowed and the corporation was ordered to produce an officer for discovery.

The complainant, a 20-year-old single male, alleged that Zurich Insurance Company discriminated against him on the basis of age, sex, and marital status by charging him a higher automobile insurance premium than it charged young females, young married males, or single males over 25.

Zurich admitted a prima facie case of discrimination but argued the rates were justified under section 21 of the Human Rights Code as being based on reasonable and bona fide grounds.

The Board of Inquiry applied the Etobicoke test for a bona fide occupational qualification, adapting it to the insurance context.

The Board found that Zurich failed to establish a direct causal relationship between the discriminatory factors and higher risk, noting that age, sex, and marital status were merely proxies for other factors like mileage and social habits.

Furthermore, Zurich failed to demonstrate that non-discriminatory rate classifications were impractical or that the essence of its business would be undermined without them.

The Board concluded that the rate classifications contravened the Code and ordered the hearing to resume to determine the appropriate remedy.