Background
Sobeys, a Nova Scotia grocery chain, dismissed Yeomans, an employee of ten years. Yeomans made a complaint to the Director of Labour Standards of Nova Scotia for dismissal without just cause under the s. 67 of the Labour Standards Code. The Director held that Yeoman's claim was valid and ordered Sobeys to reinstate him. This was affirmed by the Labour Standards Tribunal.
Sobeys Inc. is the second largest food retailer in Canada, with over 1,500 stores operating in Canada under a variety of banners. Headquartered in Stellarton, Nova Scotia, it operates stores in all ten provinces and accumulated sales of more than $24 billion CAD in the fiscal 2017 operating year. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Empire Company Limited, a Canadian conglomerate.
Nova Scotia is one of Canada's three Maritime Provinces, and one of the four provinces that form Atlantic Canada. Its provincial capital is Halifax. Nova Scotia is the second-smallest of Canada's ten provinces, with an area of 55,284 square kilometres (21,300 sq mi), including Cape Breton and another 3,800 coastal islands. As of 2016, the population was 923,598. Nova Scotia is Canada's second-most-densely populated province, after Prince Edward Island, with 17.4 inhabitants per square kilometre (45/sq mi).
Sobeys appealed the ruling to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal on the basis that the tribunal did not have the constitutional authority to hear the case. Namely, that the tribunal was encroaching on the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior courts, granted by section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
The Court of Appeal for Nova Scotia is the highest appeal court in the province of Nova Scotia, Canada. There are currently 8 judicial seats including one assigned to the Chief Justice of Nova Scotia. At any given time there may be one or more additional justices who sit as supernumerary justices. The court sits in Halifax, which is the capital of Nova Scotia. Cases are heard by a panel of three judges. They publish approximately 80 cases each year.
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal found in favour of Sobeys. The Supreme Court reconsidered this issue and in the process revamped the evaluation of section 96. The Court held that the tribunal did have the authority to hear the case, overturning the Court of Appeal.
This page is based on this
Wikipedia article Text is available under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
Canadian federalism involves the current nature and historical development of federal systems in Canada.
In common law systems, a superior court is a court of general competence which typically has unlimited jurisdiction with regard to civil and criminal legal cases. A superior court is "superior" relative to a court with limited jurisdiction, which is restricted to civil cases involving monetary amounts with a specific limit, or criminal cases involving offenses of a less serious nature. A superior court may hear appeals from lower courts.
The Federal Court of Canada, which succeeded the Exchequer Court of Canada in 1971, was a national court of Canada that had limited jurisdiction to hear certain types of disputes arising under the federal government's legislative jurisdiction. The Court was split in 2003 into two separate Courts, the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal, although the jurisdiction and powers of the Courts remained largely unchanged.
Bertha Wrenham Wilson was a Canadian jurist and the first female Puisne Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Before her ascension to Canada's highest court, Wilson was also the first female associate and partner at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt and the first woman appointed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. During her time at Osler, Wilson created the first in-firm research department in the Canadian legal industry.
The court system of Canada forms the judicial branch of government, formally known as "the Queen on the Bench", which interprets the law and is made up of many courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction. Some of the courts are federal in nature, while others are provincial or territorial.
The judiciary of Australia comprises judges who sit in federal courts and courts of the States and Territories of Australia. The High Court of Australia sits at the apex of the Australian court hierarchy as the ultimate court of appeal on matters of both federal and State law.
British Columbia v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 473, 2005 SCC 49, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court found that the provincial Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, which allowed the government to sue tobacco companies, was constitutionally valid. Imperial Tobacco Canada is an indirect subsidiary of British American Tobacco.
New Brunswick Broadcasting Co v Nova Scotia is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision wherein the court has ruled that parliamentary privilege is a part of the unwritten convention in the Constitution of Canada. Therefore, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms do not apply to members of Nova Scotia House of Assembly when they exercise their inherent privileges of refusing strangers from entering the House.
Mackeigan v Hickman, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 796 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on judicial independence. The Court unanimously held that to require a federal judge to explain his or her decisions would violate the principle of judicial independence.
Valente v R, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on protection of judicial independence under section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Nova Scotia v Martin; Nova Scotia v Laseur, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504, 2003 SCC 54, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision. The Court re-examined the authority of tribunals to hear constitutional challenges and their power to strike down legislation under section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. In doing so the Court overturned the previous decision of Cooper v. Canada , (1996). Also, the Court struck down provisions within Nova Scotia's Workers' Compensation Act that prohibited people who were disabled by chronic pain from benefits as a violation of section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Reference Re Residential Tenancies Act (Ontario), [1981] 1 S.C.R. 714 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the jurisdiction of superior courts provided by section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Court formulated a three-step test for determining whether an administrative body was encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the superior courts.
Cuddy Chicks Ltd v Ontario , [1991] 2 SCR 5 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the jurisdiction tribunals to hear constitutional challenges of the tribunal's enabling statute.
The supreme court is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts in many legal jurisdictions. Other descriptions for such courts include court of last resort, apex court, and high court of appeal. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts.
Inherent jurisdiction is a doctrine of the English common law that a superior court has the jurisdiction to hear any matter that comes before it, unless a statute or rule limits that authority or grants exclusive jurisdiction to some other court or tribunal. The term is also used when a governmental institution derives its jurisdiction from a fundamental governing instrument such as a constitution. In the English case of Bremer Vulkan Schiffbau und Maschinenfabrik v. South India Shipping Corporation Ltd, Lord Diplock described the court's inherent jurisdiction as a general power to control its own procedure so as to prevent its being used to achieve injustice.
The Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island is the superior court of the Canadian province of Prince Edward Island.
Paul v British Columbia , 2003 SCC 55, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision in administrative law and aboriginal law. The case stands for the proposition that a provincial administrative actor granted the power to determine questions of law may adjudicate matters within federal legislative competence, including s. 35 aboriginal rights matters.
The Preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867 provides:
