Pierre Delisle

The appellant, a non-profit corporation providing laundry and group purchasing services to public establishments, sought tax exemptions under the Act respecting Municipal Taxation.

The Bureau de révision de l'évaluation foncière du Québec dismissed the complaint, but the Court of Québec set it aside.

The Court of Appeal restored the Bureau's decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, applying the reasoning from a companion case to hold that the appellant should not be treated differently from its member establishments for tax purposes and is entitled to the exemptions.

The appellant filed an appearance and declaration of incidental appeal in the office of the Provincial Court instead of the Court of Appeal.

Over two years later, the appellant sought special leave from the Court of Appeal to file the documents properly, arguing the trial court clerk failed to forward them.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time limit beyond six months under art. 523 C.C.P. The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that while the documents were filed in the wrong office, the time limit for an incidental appeal is not strict like a principal appeal.

The Court held that the Court of Appeal had broad discretionary power under art. 523 C.C.P. to correct the procedural error and should have exercised it to prevent the loss of the appellant's right of appeal, as the respondents suffered no prejudice.

The Quebec Commission des valeurs mobilières recommended the suspension of the board of directors of Prêt Hypothécaire due to deteriorating financial conditions.

The Minister suspended the board and appointed a provisional administrator pursuant to s. 112 of the Securities Act.

The respondents brought an action in nullity, arguing the provision violated s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Minister's power was administrative, not judicial, as it was based on expediency rather than legality and did not involve a true lis between parties.

The appeal was allowed and the provision was upheld as intra vires.