Robert Décary

The applicants brought a motion to state four constitutional questions pursuant to Rule 32(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court reviewed the proposed questions and the 1984 amendment to Rule 32(1), which clarified that constitutional questions under the Charter are only stated when the constitutional validity, applicability, or operability of a statute or regulation is raised.

The Court found that questions 1 and 2 met this test, but questions 3 and 4 did not.

The motion was granted in part, and time was extended to state questions 1 and 2 only.

The appellant, who was 18 weeks pregnant, decided to terminate her pregnancy after separating from the respondent.

The respondent obtained an interlocutory injunction preventing the abortion, arguing that the foetus had a right to life under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Civil Code, and that he had a right to veto the abortion as the potential father.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and set aside the injunction, holding that a foetus is not a 'human being' under the Quebec Charter and does not possess juridical personality under the Civil Code.

The Court also found no legal basis for a potential father's right to veto a woman's decision to have an abortion.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal which had dismissed an appeal from a Superior Court judgment convicting the appellant under s. 25 of the Summary Convictions Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a stay of proceedings, finding a flagrant denial of justice apparent from the transcripts.

The appellant, a real estate broker, was improperly suspended and expelled from the respondent real estate board.

He brought an action seeking reinstatement and damages for loss of income, humiliation, and suffering.

The Superior Court quashed the expulsion but dismissed the damages claim as prescribed under the two-year limitation for offences and quasi-offences.

The Court of Appeal affirmed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the relationship between a voluntary association and its members is contractual.

Therefore, the damages claim for the improper expulsion is subject to a thirty-year prescription period, though damages for separate tortious acts like bomb threats remain prescribed.