53 out of 812 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

Aluminum Co. of America v Essex Group, Inc., 499F. Supp. 53, 72 (W.D. Pa. 1980)

Doctrine of frustration only applies when frustrating event is substantial, it must be so severe that it cannot be fairly regarded as being party of the risk, which had been assumed by the parties
**Minor changes are not sufficient

A mere change in degree of difficulty or expense due to such causes as increased wages, prices of raw materials, or costs of construction, unless well beyond the normal range, does not amount to impracticability since it is the sort of risk a fixed-price contract is intended to cover

Attorney General for Ontario v Attorney General for the Dominion, and the Distillers and Brewers’ Association of Ontario, [1896] A.C. 348 (J.C.P.C.)

If a subject matter is broadly defined, it can have provincial and federal aspects (double aspect doctrine); if this happens, paramountcy is an issue

Babcock v Canada (Attorney General), [2002] 3 SCR 3

Unwritten constitutional principles (UCPs) must be balanced with Parliamentary supremacy, and while they are capable of limiting governments in some cases, they cant do so in all cases.
**Parliamentary supremacy wins over UCPS

Bell Canada v Quebec, [1988] 1 SCR 749

Scope of IJI doctrine limited to the “basic, minimum and unassailable content”, the core

Black v Chretien (2001) 199 D.L.R. (4th) 228 (C.A.)

Test for whether the exercise of a prerogative power is reviewable: Where the right or legitimate expectation of an individual are affected, the court is both competent and qualified to judicially review the exercise of the prerogative power – if not, then not reviewable

Brown v Alberta (1999), 177 DLR (4th) 349 (Alta. CA)

A case must have a legal issue for the court to have jurisdiction to hear and rule on the case

The legislature can elect any Senator they want, they do not have to elect from the Senatorial Selection Act in Alberta

Canada (House of Commons) v Vaid, [2005] 1 SCR 667

Parliamentary privileges are essential the proper functioning of Parliament, but when an issue comes into question regarding a category of privilege the courts will look at whether there still exists a necessity to exercise this privilege today.

Canadian Western Bank v The Queen in Right of Alberta, [2007] 2 SCR 3

Appropriate standard for IJI is impairment, rather than affect
**It must be more than merely affects – it is when the adverse impact of a law adopted by one level of gov increases it severity from “affecting” to “impairing” (w/o necessarily sterilizing or paralyzing) that the “core” competence of the other level of gov is placed in jeopardy

Citizen Insurance Company v Parsons (1881), 7 AC 96 (PC)

The authority of the dominion to legislate for the regulation of trade and commerce does not comprehend the power of the province to regulate by legislation the contracts of a particular business or trade.

Interpretive Framework from Parsons
**“…it is the duty of the Courts…to ascertain in what degree, and to what extent, authority to deal with matters falling within these classes of subjects exists in each legislature, and to define in the particular case before them the limits of their respective powers.”
**Does the statute fall to a provincial head of power?
***If so, could it also fall to a federal head of power?
***If so, and provincial and federal exercises of power conflict, the federal Act would be dominant or “paramount”

Edwards v A.G Canada [1930] AC 123, 1 DLR 98 (PC)

1. Acts (Constitution, Statute) that refer to “persons” are referring to both the male and female sexes. (there is some debate about this)

2. The words ‘qualified persons’ in the BNA act in s.24 include women and therefore women are eligible to become members of the senate

Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd, [1942] UKHL 4, [1943] AC 32, [1942] 2 All ER 122

Where a party obtains no benefit from a contract (K), and they have paid part of a sum before frustration, then that party can recover the money paid in advance because it can be said there has been total failure of consideration.

Figueroa v Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912

The purpose of s.3 is the preservation of the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process.
**Right to effective representation

Fort Frances Pulp and Paper Co. v Manitoba Free Press Co., [1923] A.C. 695 ( PC)

Dominion is excluded from trenching on property and civil rights in the Province, yet in a sufficiently great emergency, there is implied power to deal adequately with that emergency for the safety of the dominion as a whole – s.92 is not repealed in any way

Fraser v Canada (Public Service Staff Relations Board), [1985] 2 SCR 455

Public servants must not engage in sustained and highly visible attacks on major government policies.

Public servants have a duty of loyalty to their employer, except if the government is engaged in illegal acts or if its policies jeopardize the life, health or safety of the public servant or others.

Gallen v Allstate Grain Co. (1984), 9 D.L.R. (4th) 496, 53 B.C.L.R. 38 (C.A.)

Exceptions to parol evidence rule:
*To show contract was invalid bc of fraud, misrepresentation, mistake, incapacity, lack of consideration, or lack of contracting intention
*To dispel ambiguities, to establish a term implied by custom, or to demonstrate factual matrix of agreement
*In support of a claim for rectification
*To establish a condition precedent to the agreement
*To establish a collateral agreement
*In support of allegation that doc itself wasn’t intended by parties to be the whole agreement
*In support of a claim for equitable remedy
*In support of a blain in tort that oral statement was a breach of duty of care