Skip to content

This week at the SCC

|Written By Elizabeth Raymer

In this first week of the Supreme Court of Canada’s winter session, the docket comprises three civil cases, with two involving the government: the Quebec Attorney General as appellant in the first case, concerning health law, and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness as the respondent in the third, on immigrant admissibility.

January 11 – Quebec  – Quebec v. Guérin

Health law: Quebec’s AG is applying for leave to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeal in October that dismissed the appeal from a Superior Court judgment allowing the motion for judicial review brought by the respondent, Dr. Ronald Guérin. Guérin had asked the council of arbitration to declare that the clinics he represented met the necessary conditions for obtaining a special fee. The issue is whether a medical specialist may submit that dispute to the council of arbitration established by s. 54 of the Health Insurance Act or whether only the medical specialist’s representative association has the interest required.
Read the Quebec appellate court decision here.

January 12 – Quebec – Uniprix v. Gestion Gosselin et Bérubé

Contract law: The parties had been bound by a contract of affiliation since 1998. A clause in the contract provided that the contract would be renewed automatically every five years unless the respondents gave notice to the contrary. Six months before the contract term expired, the applicant sent a notice of non-renewal. The respondents, the beneficiaries of the renewal clause in the contract, refused to allow the applicant to terminate the contract in that way and brought a motion before the courts for a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction.
Read the Quebec appellate court decision here.

Related law firm bulletins:
Can you be contractually bound to another party forever? McCarthy Tétrault LLP

To the end of the term and beyond: perpetual renewal clauses considered legal; Lapointe Rosenstein Marchand Melançon LLP

Automatic renewal provisions and perpetuity; Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP

January 13 – Federal – Tran v. Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Immigration law: On January 18, 2013, Thanh Tam Tran, a permanent resident in Canada, was convicted of operating a large marijuana grow operation. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, permanent residents are inadmissible to Canada if they have been convicted of acts of “serious criminality” carrying maximum prison terms of at least 10 years. The maximum sentence for the marijuana offence was seven years at the time of the offence but 14 years at the time of Tran’s conviction, and he received a conditional sentence. In 2013 Tran was referred by the respondent to the Immigration and Refugee Board to determine whether he should be removed from Canada for serious criminality.

Read the Federal Court of Appeal decision here.

Related law firm bulletins:
Conditional Sentence is not Imprisonment in Inadmissibility for Serious Criminality; Legally Canadian Immigration Law Firm

Related briefs:
Inadmissible and Removable Classes: Conditional sentence did not represent term of imprisonment; Law Times




  • clawbies 2015
    clawbies 2014
  • clawbies 2013
    clawbies 2012
  • clawbies 2011
    clawbies 2010