Paul Plourde

The appellants challenged an Order in Council extending the limits of the port of Saint John to include their private harbour facilities, and a National Harbours Board By-law imposing harbour dues on vessels using those facilities.

The appellants argued the Order in Council was passed for improper motives to increase revenues, and that the By-law unlawfully interfered with their private property rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the courts cannot inquire into the motives of the Governor in Council in passing an Order in Council, and that the imposition of harbour dues on vessels entering the harbour does not constitute an unlawful exercise of jurisdiction over private property.

The appellant lost his employment due to a work stoppage and subsequently found full-time secondary employment, from which he was later laid off.

His claim for unemployment benefits was initially rejected.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed his appeal, following its concurrent decision in Abrahams v. Attorney General of Canada regarding the interpretation of 'regularly engaged in some other occupation' under section 44(1)(c) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.

The appellant lost his employment due to a strike and subsequently found secondary employment working three days a week at a hospital.

He left the hospital job for medical reasons and applied for unemployment insurance benefits.

The Commission denied benefits under s. 44(1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, arguing he was not 'regularly engaged in some other occupation' because he intended to return to his original employer after the strike.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that 'regularly engaged' refers to the regularity of the work schedule, not the duration or permanence of the employment.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was entitled to benefits.