Attorney General of Ontario

Three provincial appellants challenged the constitutionality of the federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which established minimum national standards of greenhouse gas price stringency operating as a backstop to provincial pricing systems.

The courts below were divided, with the Saskatchewan and Ontario Courts of Appeal upholding the Act while the Alberta Court of Appeal struck it down.

A 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court held that the Act's pith and substance is the establishment of minimum national standards of greenhouse gas price stringency to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that this matter falls within Parliament's jurisdiction under the national concern branch of the peace, order, and good government power.

The majority further held that the fuel and excess emissions charges are constitutionally valid regulatory charges rather than taxes.

The appeals by the Attorneys General of Saskatchewan and Ontario were dismissed and the appeal by the Attorney General of British Columbia was allowed, with Côté J. dissenting in part and Brown and Rowe JJ. fully dissenting.

The Court held that police violated section 8 by seizing a shared home computer without lawful authority, despite co-user consent, and later searching it under an invalid warrant after prolonged unlawful detention.

Considering the seriousness of repeated Charter breaches and their impact on privacy interests, the evidence was excluded under section 24(2).

In related pan-national class proceedings, the court considered whether supervisory superior court judges may sit together outside their home provinces to hear motions in implementing a settlement.

The court held that, where subject-matter and personal jurisdiction exist and no coercive powers are required, judges may exercise discretionary authority to sit extraprovincially if local law does not prohibit it.

The court concluded this authority is available under the relevant class proceedings statutes and, in any event, aligns with inherent jurisdiction principles.

The court rejected a mandatory video-link condition, while confirming that openness and practical access remain relevant discretionary considerations.

The appeals were allowed and the cross-appeal was dismissed.

The Court allowed the Crown’s appeal in a jury-representativeness challenge arising from the underrepresentation of Aboriginal on-reserve residents on the Kenora jury roll.

The majority held the constitutional obligation is to provide a fair opportunity for participation through reasonable efforts in source-list selection and notice delivery, not to guarantee a proportionate jury-roll composition.

The order for a new trial was set aside and the manslaughter conviction was reinstated.

In two joined criminal appeals, the court considered whether mandatory minimum imprisonment terms in s. 95(2) of the Criminal Code for possession of loaded prohibited or restricted firearms violated s. 12 of the Charter.

The majority held that while the impugned minimums were not grossly disproportionate for the respondents themselves, they were grossly disproportionate in reasonably foreseeable licensing-type scenarios and therefore unconstitutional.

The infringement was not justified under s. 1, and the mandatory minimum provisions were declared of no force or effect.

The respondents' individual fit sentences were nevertheless upheld.