René LeBlanc

The appellant municipality challenged the federal minister's valuation of lands at a national historic site for payments in lieu of municipal property taxes.

The Court held that, while the minister may form an independent opinion of property value, that opinion must reflect how an assessment authority would value the property under the applicable tax system and must remain consistent with the governing statute's fairness objectives.

The Court found the nominal valuation approach unreasonable because it lacked evidentiary grounding in assessment practice and effectively undermined the statutory scheme's inclusion of historic sites.

The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for redetermination by the minister, with any new advisory panel required to be differently constituted.

The Attorney General of Quebec appealed a decision dismissing its claim that the federal government was required to share in the costs of social services provided in schools and support services provided to persons with disabilities under the Canada Assistance Plan.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that social services in schools were not 'welfare services' because their primary object was to support the educational mission of schools, not to fight poverty.

Furthermore, the Court held that the federal government was already sharing the costs of support services for persons with disabilities requiring continuous assistance under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977, which triggered the residual exception in the Canada Assistance Plan.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal which held that several provisions of the federal Assisted Human Reproduction Act were ultra vires Parliament.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part.

A majority of the Court found that the provisions regulating controlled activities (such as clinical practice and research) exceeded Parliament's criminal law power and intruded into provincial jurisdiction over health and property and civil rights.

However, provisions prohibiting specific negative practices, such as the use of reproductive material without consent, were upheld as valid criminal law.

Appeal concerning whether a mining project in the James Bay Territory, approved under the environmental assessment regime in a modern treaty, was nevertheless subject to a further federal environmental assessment before a fisheries authorization could issue.

The majority held that the treaty is protected by s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, but does not exclude the operation of federal laws of general application requiring CEAA compliance before issuance of a Fisheries Act permit.

The treaty's single-review provision governed internal treaty review processes only and did not eliminate the proponent's obligation to obtain necessary post-approval federal permits.

The Court varied the Court of Appeal's order to confirm that any fisheries authorization must comply with CEAA procedures and the Crown's duty to consult.

The appellants filed a complaint alleging that Industry Canada failed to provide community economic development services in French of equal quality to those provided in English in the Huronia region.

The Commissioner of Official Languages found a breach of the Official Languages Act.

By the time the appellants applied for a court remedy under s. 77 of the Act, Industry Canada had taken corrective measures.

The Federal Court of Appeal held that while there was an initial breach, no remedy other than costs was appropriate because the remaining deficiencies related to program content rather than linguistic access, which fell outside Part IV of the Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the remaining issues were beyond the scope of Part IV, though it clarified that substantive equality may sometimes require services with distinct content depending on the nature of the program.

The appeals challenged the constitutional validity of active employment measures under the federal employment insurance regime and the legality of premium-setting provisions that generated large surpluses.

The Court held that employment services, training measures, work-sharing programs, and employment benefits remained within Parliament’s unemployment insurance power because that power includes maintaining ties between unemployed persons and the labour market.

It further held that premiums set under the original statutory framework remained valid as regulatory charges, notwithstanding large surpluses, because s. 66 preserved a sufficient nexus to the scheme.

However, the later provisions authorizing the Governor in Council to set rates without statutory criteria transformed the levy into a tax, and Parliament had not clearly and unambiguously delegated taxing authority as required by s. 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The appeals were therefore allowed in part, invalidating the applicable versions of ss. 66.1 and 66.3 for 2002, 2003 and 2005, with the declaration suspended for 12 months.

The appellants brought actions seeking a declaration that the RCMP, when acting as a provincial police force in New Brunswick under an agreement between the federal and provincial governments, is bound by the language obligations imposed on New Brunswick institutions by s. 20(2) of the Charter.

The Federal Court of Appeal held that the RCMP was only bound by federal language obligations.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that because RCMP members are designated as provincial peace officers and perform the role of an institution of the New Brunswick government, they must comply with s. 20(2) of the Charter and provide services in both official languages.

The appellants challenged the validity of provisions in Quebec's Health Insurance Act and Hospital Insurance Act that prohibit residents from purchasing private health insurance for services covered by the public health care plan.

They argued that waiting times in the public system deprived them of access to timely care, violating their rights under the Quebec Charter and the Canadian Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal.

A majority found that the prohibition violates the right to life and personal inviolability under s. 1 of the Quebec Charter and is not justified under s. 9.1.

Three of the judges also found that the prohibition violates s. 7 of the Canadian Charter because it arbitrarily deprives individuals of life and security of the person by forcing them to endure unreasonable waiting times without the option of seeking private care.

The National Energy Board granted Hydro-Québec licences to export electricity to the United States, subject to conditions requiring environmental assessments of future generating facilities.

The appellants challenged the licences on grounds of inadequate cost-benefit analysis, procedural fairness, breach of fiduciary duty, and infringement of aboriginal rights.

The respondents cross-appealed the imposition of the environmental conditions.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Board properly conducted its review, owed no fiduciary duty in its quasi-judicial capacity, and did not infringe aboriginal rights.

Furthermore, the Court found that the Board acted within its jurisdiction under the National Energy Board Act and the EARP Guidelines Order by considering the environmental effects of future facilities and imposing the conditions.