Sidney Green

The appellant condominium corporation, a subsequent purchaser of a building, discovered severe structural defects in the exterior cladding after a large section fell off.

The appellant repaired the building at its own expense and sued the original general contractor in tort for negligence to recover the pure economic loss.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that a contractor owes a duty of care in tort to subsequent purchasers of a building to take reasonable care in construction and to ensure the building does not contain defects that pose a foreseeable and substantial danger to health and safety.

The Court allowed the appeal, ruling that the reasonable cost of repairing dangerous defects is recoverable in tort, and ordered the matter to proceed to trial.

The appellant, a statutory corporation created to encourage economic development in remote and isolated communities, made a loan to a company located near Winnipeg.

The loan was guaranteed by the respondent, a director and shareholder of the company.

The company defaulted, and the appellant sued the guarantors.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the loan was ultra vires the appellant because it contravened its statutory objects.

Furthermore, the Court held that the respondent was not liable on the guarantee because the principal debt was a nullity and the respondent had not personally received any of the funds.

The appellant lawyer was subject to disciplinary proceedings by the provincial law society.

He challenged the constitutionality of a provision in the Law Society Act that allowed the society to award costs of an investigation against a lawyer found guilty of professional misconduct, arguing it created a pecuniary interest and a reasonable apprehension of bias violating section 7 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the costs provision did not contravene the principles of fundamental justice, as the recouped costs were reimbursements for expenses, not profits, and any pecuniary interest of the committee members was too remote to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent employee sued his union in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation after the union pursued grievances on behalf of other employees that resulted in the respondent losing a promotion.

The trial judge dismissed the action, but the Court of Appeal allowed it.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the union's appeal, holding that the ordinary courts lack jurisdiction to entertain the claim.

The comprehensive legislative scheme of the Canada Labour Code, which includes a statutory duty of fair representation and a privative clause, ousts the common law duty by necessary implication and assigns exclusive jurisdiction to the Canada Labour Relations Board.

The appellants challenged the constitutionality of the Manitoba Elections Finances Act, arguing that public funding of political parties infringed their freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter by forcing taxpayers to support views they opposed.

The appellants presented no evidence to support their claim, relying instead on unsupported hypotheses.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that Charter decisions cannot be made in a factual vacuum and that the legislation did not prohibit expression but rather fostered the dissemination of diverse views.

The appellant applied for subdivision approval, which was denied by the municipal council because the land was considered flood-prone.

The council refused to consider any proposals to remedy the flooding problem.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while flooding was a proper consideration, the council erred by failing to consider the scope of the problem and possible solutions.

The failure to take into account a highly relevant consideration meant the council did not exercise its discretion according to law.

The appeal was allowed and the council was ordered to reconsider the application.