René Duval

The appellant was convicted of three counts of first degree murder for being a party, with her spouse, to the murder of their three children as part of a murder-suicide pact.

She argued the trial judge erred in not putting the defence of abandonment to the jury as an alternative to her primary defence of absence of mens rea.

The Supreme Court held there is no cardinal rule against putting incompatible defences to a jury, but the defence of abandonment did not meet the air of reality test because the appellant, who had supplied the murder weapon, failed to take reasonable steps proportional to her participation to neutralize its effects or prevent the offence.

The Court reformulated the test for abandonment under s. 21(1) of the Criminal Code to include a fourth element requiring proportional neutralizing or preventative steps.

The appellants, airline pilots forced to retire at age 60, filed complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission alleging age discrimination.

The Commission dismissed the complaints because the Canadian Human Rights Act provided an exception for mandatory retirement at the normal industry age.

The appellants sought judicial review, arguing the exception violated the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that neither the Commission nor a tribunal appointed by it has the jurisdiction to determine the constitutional validity of its enabling statute, as Parliament did not grant them the power to determine general questions of law.

Appeal from a Federal Court of Appeal judgment setting aside a Human Rights Tribunal decision that had found discrimination in the denial of bereavement leave to a federal employee seeking leave to attend the funeral of his same-sex partner's father.

The Supreme Court majority held that the interpretation of 'family status' under the Canadian Human Rights Act was a question of law reviewable for correctness under s. 28 of the Federal Court Act.

On the merits, the majority concluded that, at the material time, 'family status' did not include same-sex relationships and that reading it otherwise would indirectly introduce protection for sexual orientation that Parliament had not then enacted.

The dissent would have deferred to the Tribunal's broad and purposive interpretation and would have reinstated the finding of discrimination.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission issued a search warrant against Sun Life Assurance Company, a provincially regulated entity, in relation to a discrimination complaint against the Bank of Montreal, a federally regulated entity.

Sun Life appealed the validity of the warrant.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the warrant was properly issued because the complaint was directed solely at the Bank of Montreal and the matter was merely investigatory, not directed at Sun Life itself.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission and Action Travail des Femmes appealed a Federal Court of Appeal decision that set aside a portion of a Human Rights Tribunal order.

The Tribunal had found that the employer engaged in systemic discrimination against women in blue-collar jobs and ordered an employment equity program, including a requirement that the employer hire one woman for every four non-traditional jobs until women constituted 13% of that workforce.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal had jurisdiction under s. 41(2)(a) of the Canadian Human Rights Act to order an employment equity program to prevent future systemic discrimination.