Anne M. Turley

The applicants, four Canadian men detained in northeastern Syria for suspected ISIS affiliation, applied for an order compelling the Canadian government to repatriate them.

The Federal Court found that the applicants' Charter section 6(1) mobility rights required the government to make a formal request for their repatriation, provide emergency travel documents, and appoint a representative for their handover.

The application was allowed in part and declaratory relief was granted.

A Métis federal inmate challenged correctional authorities’ use of psychological and actuarial risk tools for Indigenous offenders, alleging statutory and Charter breaches.

The Court held that authorities breached their duty under s. 24(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act by continuing to rely on the tools without taking reasonable steps to confirm validity for Indigenous persons.

The Court declined to find violations of ss. 7 or 15 of the Charter on the evidentiary record.

Declaratory relief was granted in light of the prolonged and ineffective grievance history, but no broader injunctive remedy was ordered.

The appellants challenged the legality of the Federal Child Support Guidelines through judicial review in the Federal Court.

The Supreme Court held that provincial superior courts can address the validity of the Guidelines when necessary in proceedings properly before them, and that the Federal Court reasonably exercised its discretion to decline judicial review because that route was not appropriate in the circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed, with concurring reasons cautioning against treating the case as a definitive ruling on exclusive federal jurisdiction to invalidate all federal regulations on administrative grounds.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking production of notes taken by defence counsel during an interview with him conducted years earlier while he was only a potential witness in related litigation.

The court considered the scope of litigation privilege and whether it survives the conclusion of earlier related proceedings.

It held that while litigation privilege can extend to related litigation, information obtained directly from the opposing party cannot be privileged as against that party.

The court distinguished between the factual record of the interview and counsel’s work product, holding that the plaintiff was entitled to the record of his statements but not counsel’s privileged annotations or memoranda.

The handwritten notes recording the interview were ordered produced, subject to potential redactions for privileged commentary.

The appellants sought return of withholding amounts remitted on capital gains from share dispositions, arguing the trusts were resident in Barbados under the Canada-Barbados treaty.

The respondent maintained the trusts were resident in Canada because central management and control was exercised in Canada by the principal beneficiaries.

The Court held trust residence is determined by where the trust's real business is carried on, applying the central management and control approach used for corporations.

On the factual findings, the trustee's role was largely administrative and effective control occurred in Canada.

The appeals were dismissed with costs.

The appellant, a U.S. corporation, submitted a bid for a military procurement contract.

When another bidder was awarded the contract, the appellant filed a complaint with the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) alleging violations of the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT).

The CITT ruled the appellant had standing, but the Federal Court of Appeal quashed the ruling.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that non-Canadian suppliers do not have standing before the CITT to bring a complaint under the AIT, as the AIT is a domestic free trade agreement and its procurement provisions apply only to Canadian suppliers.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the disclosure of customs information on travellers by Revenue Canada to the Canada Employment Insurance Commission.

The program aimed to identify individuals receiving employment insurance benefits while outside Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, adopting the reasons of the Federal Court of Appeal that the disclosure was authorized under the Privacy Act and the Customs Act.

The appellant received unemployment insurance benefits while holidaying outside Canada.

Upon returning, she filled out a Customs Declaration Form, and the information was disclosed to the Canada Unemployment Insurance Commission, which ordered repayment of the benefits.

The appellant argued this disclosure violated her right against unreasonable search or seizure under section 8 of the Charter, and that the disentitlement violated her mobility rights under section 6(1).

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in the disclosed customs information and no breach of mobility rights.

The appellant filed an access to information request for copies of weekend sign-in logs for employees of the Department of Finance.

The Minister disclosed the logs but deleted the employees' names, identification numbers, and signatures, claiming they constituted personal information.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the names prima facie constituted personal information, they fell within the exception in s. 3(j) of the Privacy Act because the number of hours spent at the workplace relates to the position or functions of the individual.

The Court ordered the disclosure of the requested information.