Randell Earle

The appellant union sought a successorship declaration after a unionized construction company set up a parallel non-unionized company to bid on non-union projects, a practice known as double breasting.

The Labour Relations Board granted the declaration, finding a disposition of business had occurred.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Board's decision was patently unreasonable because there was no evidence of a transfer or disposition of assets, work, or expertise from the unionized company to the non-unionized company.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the quashing of the Board's order.

The appellants appealed their conviction for attempting to obstruct justice.

They had wilfully counselled a witness to give false testimony in a pending trial, though the proposed false evidence could not have affected the outcome of the trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal as of right, adopting the reasons of the Chief Justice of Newfoundland.

The Attorney General of Newfoundland appealed a decision regarding the interpretation of Clause 2(e) of Part I of a statutory lease executed pursuant to the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that both the Trial Division and the Court of Appeal had arrived at the correct construction of the clause, albeit by different routes.