Réal Forest

In a civil appeal arising from discovery objections in a large municipal infrastructure dispute, the appellant municipality argued that questions concerning information received from its lawyers and requests for related documents were barred by professional secrecy.

The Court held that Quebec professional secrecy includes both an obligation of confidentiality and an immunity from disclosure, but not every aspect of the lawyer-client relationship is necessarily confidential.

For complicated and prolonged mandates, a rebuttable presumption of confidentiality applies, after which the opposing party must identify the information sought with specificity and show why disclosure is permissible.

Narrowed questions aimed only at the identity of the project and the status of regulatory approvals were allowed, while disputed documents had to be reviewed by the trial judge before any ruling on immunity from disclosure.

The presence of a facilitator at an in camera meeting did not amount to waiver.

The appellant union challenged the federal Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act, which extended collective agreements and fixed wage increases for public sector employees, arguing it violated freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter and equality before the law under s. 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

The majority held that the guarantee of freedom of association does not include a constitutional guarantee of the right to bargain collectively and the right to strike.

The Court also found no violation of the Canadian Bill of Rights, as the legislation was directed at a valid federal objective of dampening inflationary expectations.

Following the Supreme Court's opinion declaring Manitoba's unilingual statutes constitutionally invalid, a special hearing was held to determine the minimum period necessary for their translation, re-enactment, printing, and publishing.

The Court issued a consent order giving effect to Manitoba's commitment to publish its laws in a bilingual, parallel column format.

The period of temporary validity for the laws of Manitoba was extended to December 31, 1988, for consolidated statutes, regulations, and rules of court, and to December 31, 1990, for all other laws.

The appellant appealed judgments declaring that the provisions regarding English instruction in Chapter VIII of the Charter of the French language (Bill 101) were inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that sections 72 and 73 of Bill 101 are inconsistent with section 23 of the Charter and are of no force or effect to the extent of the inconsistency.

The Court found that the limits imposed by Bill 101 on minority language educational rights could not be justified under section 1 of the Charter, as section 23 was specifically drafted to remedy the type of regime established by Bill 101.