T. H. Wickett

The appellant municipality sought restitution from the federal and provincial governments for monies paid to support juvenile delinquents placed in group homes under an ultra vires provision of the Juvenile Delinquents Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that the municipality failed to establish that its payments conferred an 'incontrovertible benefit' on either level of government.

Neither government was under a legal obligation to pay for the juveniles' care, and the payments did not discharge a liability or save them an inevitable expense.

The complainant alleged that the respondent insurance company discriminated against young, single, male drivers by charging them higher automobile insurance premiums than other groups.

The respondent conceded a prima facie infringement of the Human Rights Code but argued the distinction was based on reasonable and bona fide grounds under s. 21.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the discriminatory practice was reasonable because it was based on sound and accepted insurance practice and there was no practical alternative available to the industry at the time.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a decision holding it liable in nuisance for damage caused to the respondents' orchards by the use of road salt as a de-icing agent on an adjoining highway.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing entirely with the trial judge's conclusions and reasons, which had been affirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondents on a solicitor and client basis.