Stéphane Forest

The appellants, former employees of Stelco in Quebec, sought early retirement benefits under Stelco's pension plan after plant closures.

The plan was governed by Ontario law.

Ontario's Superintendent of Pensions ordered a partial wind up and approved a report granting early retirement benefits only to Ontario employees, while Quebec employees received deferred pensions under Quebec law.

The appellants did not contest this decision in Ontario but sued in Quebec based on their employment contracts.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the action was an impermissible collateral attack on the Superintendent's final decision, barred by res judicata and issue estoppel, and that the Quebec courts should decline jurisdiction based on forum non conveniens.

The appellant erected a sign on his building expressing dissatisfaction with his insurance company.

He was convicted of contravening a municipal by-law that prohibited advertising signs outside industrial zones.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the by-law infringed freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, as consumers have a constitutional right to engage in 'counter-advertising' to criticize products or services.

The Court found the infringement was not justified under s. 1, as the by-law was arbitrary, did not minimally impair the right, and its impact was disproportionate to the goal of preventing visual pollution.

The appeal was allowed, the by-law provisions were declared invalid, and an acquittal was entered.