Other Tribunals - SCC

A former senior official of an international fisheries organization sued for wrongful dismissal and related employment remedies in Canadian court.

The organization invoked functional jurisdictional immunity under its governing privileges and immunities order, which grants immunity to the extent required for the performance of organizational functions.

The Court held immunity barred the managerial and dismissal-related claims because adjudication would unduly interfere with organizational autonomy, notwithstanding the absence of an internal dispute forum.

However, immunity did not bar the contractual separation-indemnity claim, which the organization conceded and which did not intrude on core functions.

The appeal was allowed in part and remitted for adjudication of that remaining claim.

The appellant municipality sought to restore a conviction under a municipal noise by-law after the lower courts held the provision ultra vires and unconstitutional.

The case concerned amplified music and commentary projected from a nightclub entrance onto a downtown street, raising both municipal law and Charter issues.

The majority held that, on a contextual interpretation, the by-law targeted only disruptive noise that stands out from environmental noise and therefore fell within the municipality’s delegated nuisance power.

The Court further held that the prohibition infringed freedom of expression on public streets, clarified the approach to expression on government-owned property, and concluded the infringement was justified under s. 1 because combatting urban noise pollution was pressing and the measure minimally impaired expression.

The appeal was allowed with costs, over a dissent that would have found the provision ultra vires and unjustified.

Parents who, for religious reasons, sent their children to private Jewish and Christian schools challenged Ontario’s refusal to fund those schools and to extend school health support services to students attending them.

The appeal raised Charter claims under ss. 2(a) and 15(1), together with the constitutional significance of s. 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and s. 29 of the Charter.

The majority held that the non-funding of dissentient religious schools did not violate the appellants’ Charter rights, emphasizing the constitutional structure governing denominational school rights and the absence of any positive entitlement to state support for religious education.

The majority also held that the School Health Support Services Program was properly characterized as an education service linked to the public system and therefore did not infringe the Charter.

The appeal was dismissed, with partial dissents on the equality and school health support issues.

Appeals concerning whether labour relations at a provincially owned utility's nuclear generating stations were governed by provincial or federal labour legislation.

The majority held that Parliament's declaratory power under s. 92(10)(c) and s. 91(29) validly brought the nuclear facilities within exclusive federal jurisdiction, and that labour relations were integral to the operation and management of those declared works.

A majority also held that atomic energy is a matter of national concern under the peace, order and good government power, and that labour relations at the nuclear facilities formed part of that jurisdiction.

The argument that provincial authority over electrical generation under s. 92A(1)(c) displaced federal authority was rejected.

The appeals were dismissed and the Canada Labour Code was held to apply to employees employed on or in connection with the nuclear facilities.

The appeal arose from a federal constitutional referendum held everywhere in Canada except Quebec, where a separate provincial referendum proceeded under different residency rules.

The appellants had recently moved from Ontario to Quebec and, because of the interaction of the federal and provincial residency requirements, could vote in neither process.

The majority held that the federal referendum legislation did not extend voting rights to persons ordinarily resident in Quebec on the federal enumeration date, and that the Chief Electoral Officer lacked authority to adapt the scheme to do so.

The Court further held that s. 3 of the Charter does not guarantee a right to vote in a referendum, that s. 2(b) did not require the state to provide this expressive platform, and that s. 15(1) was not infringed.

Appeal dismissed, with dissent on the s. 2(b) issue.

The appellant sought to quash municipal loan by-laws and recover special taxes paid on the basis that affected owners had not received legally sufficient notices convening electors.

The Court held that the notices were indeed insufficient and that the resulting illegality was serious enough to support a direct action in nullity under art. 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

However, the remedy remained discretionary, and except in cases of total absence of jurisdiction, such proceedings must be brought within a reasonable time notwithstanding the thirty-year prescription period.

Given the appellant's knowledge of the taxes, repeated payment without protest, and lengthy unexplained delay after the work was completed and bonds issued, the Superior Court properly dismissed the action.

The appellant municipality challenged a Court of Appeal decision annulling a by-law regulating amusement machines and amusement halls.

The Supreme Court held that, apart from severable age-based restrictions, the by-law was a valid regulatory scheme concerning local commerce, zoning, youth protection and local policing, and was neither disguised prohibitory legislation nor impermissibly vague.

The Court further held that the municipality lacked authority to enact discriminatory distinctions based on age absent express or necessarily implied statutory authorization, rendering the provisions excluding persons under eighteen from amusement halls and billiard halls ultra vires.

The constitutional division-of-powers challenge failed because the by-law did not trench on the federal criminal law power.