42 total
Section 33(3) of the Fisheries Act is ultra vires the federal Parliament as it regulates provincial property rights without linking to fishery harm.
The appellant was charged under s. 33(3) of the Fisheries Act for depositing logging debris into a stream that flowed into fish-bearing waters.
The trial judge acquitted the appellant, finding the subsection ultra vires the federal Parliament.
The County Court and Court of Appeal upheld the legislation as valid under the federal power over sea coast and inland fisheries.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that s. 33(3) is a blanket prohibition of activities subject to provincial jurisdiction without linking the proscribed conduct to actual or potential harm to fisheries.
Therefore, it is not necessarily incidental to effective fishery legislation and is ultra vires.
Crown has priority for unremitted CPP and UI deductions in receivership, but not income tax.
The appellant credit union held a fixed and floating charge over the assets of the debtor company.
A receiver was appointed and realized the assets.
The Crown claimed priority for unremitted source deductions (income tax, CPP, UI) made by the employer prior to receivership, and for deductions on wages paid by the receiver after appointment.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the receiver must remit deductions on wages it paid.
For pre-receivership deductions, the Crown had priority for CPP and UI deductions due to statutory deeming provisions applying in a 'liquidation', but lacked priority for income tax deductions which were not kept separate and apart.
Application to enforce US letters rogatory dismissed on grounds of Canadian public policy and sovereignty.
The applicant, Gulf Oil Corporation, applied to the Supreme Court of Canada under s. 43 of the Canada Evidence Act to enforce letters rogatory issued by United States courts.
The letters sought the production of documents held by the applicant's Canadian subsidiaries for use in US anti-trust litigation regarding a uranium cartel.
The Canadian government opposed disclosure on public policy grounds, citing the Uranium Information Security Regulations and Canadian sovereignty.
The Court assumed jurisdiction but dismissed the application, holding that it would be a wrongful exercise of discretion to enforce the letters rogatory contrary to the stated public policy of the Canadian government.