Hearings scheduled at federal courts this coming week concern employment and constitutional matters
This coming week, hearings scheduled before Canada’s Supreme Court, Federal Court of Appeal, and Federal Court included matters concerning the Civil Code of Quebec, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and Official Languages Act.
The Supreme Court set Ville de Sainte-Julie v. Investissements Laroda Inc., 41036 on Feb. 17, Monday. In 2004 and 2008, the city of Ville de Sainte-Julie applied with the Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec to exclude from an agricultural zone a certain area of land where the respondent’s lots were located. Both applications were unsuccessful.
In 2015, the respondent asked the city mayor to make an offer corresponding to the present value of an area of land covered by an agreement between the city and Promotion M.G. Larochelle inc., whose rights, titles, and interest the respondent had acquired. The parties failed to come to an understanding.
The respondent filed an application asking the court to fix a term for the agreement and to order the city to pay damages. The Quebec Superior Court dismissed this application. The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the respondent’s appeal. The present case before the Supreme Court involved issues concerning provisions of the Civil Code of Quebec relating to contractual obligations.
The Supreme Court scheduled His Majesty the King v. Singer, 41090 on Feb. 18, Tuesday. Here, police officers found the respondent asleep in the driver’s seat of a parked vehicle. They detected a strong smell of alcohol upon opening the car doors. After he failed a roadside breath test, the officers arrested him for care or control of a motor vehicle with an excessive blood alcohol level.
The respondent refused to give a breath sample at the police station, which prompted a charge of failure to comply with a peace officer’s demand for a breath sample. At trial, he alleged a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights and requested exclusion of the evidence.
The trial judge rejected the respondent’s Charter application and convicted him of the charge. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed his appeal, excluded the evidence, and acquitted him. The officers’ conduct amounted to a search violating s. 8 of the Charter, the appeal court said.
The Supreme Court set Bilodeau v. His Majesty the King, 41320 on Feb. 19, Wednesday. A jury found the appellant in this case guilty of two counts of manslaughter for the deaths of two men. The jury deemed him liable under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code, 1985 for forming an intention to carry out an unlawful purpose common with his son, who had shot the men.
The appellant challenged his convictions based on improper jury instructions relating to the issue of common unlawful purpose. The Alberta Court of Appeal’s majority dismissed his appeal. The majority saw no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, given that the identified errors benefited him. The majority found s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code applicable.
The Supreme Court scheduled Joubert v. His Majesty the King, 41262 on Feb. 20, Thursday. Here, a jury trial at the Quebec Superior Court led to the appellant’s convictions on one count each of second degree murder and assault with a weapon.
The appellant challenged his convictions and alleged errors in the judge’s instructions about manslaughter and in his answer to a jury question when he failed to state the required mens rea. The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s appeal.
The appeal court found the jury instructions correct in the context of this case. Regarding the jury question, the judge did not need to address the appellant’s guilt relating to the manslaughter verdict because he had conceded his guilt, the appeal court said.
The appeal court scheduled Library of Parliament v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, A-311-23 on Feb. 20, Thursday. This matter concerned the renewal of expired collective agreements for two bargaining units.
An arbitration board panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board issued an interest arbitral award tackling outstanding issues between the parties that collective bargaining failed to resolve.
These outstanding issues were referred to interest arbitration under the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, 1985. The present judicial review application challenged certain parts of the interest arbitral award.
The court set Marleau v. Ministère de la justice, T-1362-20 on Feb. 18, Tuesday. On Nov. 13, 2020, the applicant in this case brought an action against the respondent under ss. 41, 77, and 81(2) of the Official Languages Act, 1985 at the Federal Court.
The applicant argued that the respondent breached s. 41 by failing to take positive measures to ensure the adoption of a French version of the constitutional text in the Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982.
The respondent moved for an order under s. 50(1) (b) of the Federal Courts Act, 1985. The respondent wanted to stay this proceeding until a final resolution of another matter pending before the Quebec Superior Court, considering the similarity of the remedy requested in both cases.
The applicant opposed the respondent’s motion. He argued that dismissal of the motion and a continuance of the proceedings would serve the interests of justice because the basis of his claim and the issues that he raised were distinct from those involved in the case pending with the Quebec court.
On Jan. 30, 2025, in Marleau v. Canada (Justice), 2025 CF 184, the Federal Court dismissed the motion of the respondent. The court held that the defendant failed to show that staying the proceedings would serve the interests of justice in the circumstances.
