Rhys Davies

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.

The testator left his wife of 43 years only a life estate in the matrimonial home and the benefit of a discretionary trust, leaving the bulk of the estate to one of his two sons.

The wife and the disinherited son claimed against the estate under the Wills Variation Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the wife's appeal, holding that the Act requires a court to consider both the legal and moral obligations of the testator.

The Court awarded the wife title to the matrimonial home, a life interest in a rental property, and the residue of the estate, finding that her legal and moral claims took precedence over the moral claims of the independent adult sons.

The appellant Bank financed the purchase of a company by the respondents, who guaranteed the loans.

The Bank, concerned about the company's finances, deceitfully obtained the respondents' consent to appoint a receiver by misrepresenting its intentions.

The company was placed in receivership and the Bank sued the respondents on their guarantees.

The trial judge found the Bank deceitful but held the guarantors liable as the company was insolvent and the receivership actually reduced their liability.

The Court of Appeal discharged the guarantors due to the Bank's deceit.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Bank's appeal, holding that a guarantor is not discharged by a creditor's misrepresentations or irregular conduct unless it materially alters the risk assumed or causes prejudice to the guarantor.

The respondent, a British subject permanently resident in Canada, met all requirements for admission to the British Columbia bar except Canadian citizenship.

He challenged the citizenship requirement under s. 15(1) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the citizenship requirement infringed s. 15(1) because it discriminated against non-citizens, an analogous group, and was not justified under s. 1.

The Court established the foundational approach to s. 15(1), rejecting the 'similarly situated' test in favour of an approach focusing on enumerated and analogous grounds.

The accused was charged with several sexual offences nearly three years after the alleged incidents, primarily due to the police's inability to locate the complainant.

A Provincial Court judge stayed the proceedings, finding the pre-charge delay violated the accused's right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the accused's appeal, holding that the time frame for assessing a section 11(b) claim generally runs only from the moment a person is charged, and pre-charge delay is irrelevant to this analysis.