Barbara A. McIsaac

The Chief Electoral Officer appealed a decision allowing the Conservative Fund Canada to amend its 2004 and 2006 election expenses returns to reflect GST rebates received under the Excise Tax Act.

The Fund argued that the Canada Elections Act required election expenses to be reported in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), meaning expenses should be reported net of GST rebates.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the plain wording of the Canada Elections Act does not require general election expenses to be reported in accordance with GAAP.

The Court found this interpretation consistent with Parliament's intent to maintain a level political playing field through equal spending limits.

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 United Mexican States appealed a decision dismissing its application to set aside a NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitration award.

The arbitration tribunal had found that Mexico breached NAFTA by denying tax rebates to an American-owned company while granting them to domestic companies in similar circumstances.

Mexico argued the tribunal erred by drawing adverse inferences from its refusal to disclose confidential taxpayer information and that the damages award violated public policy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the tribunal's decision was entitled to a high degree of deference, the procedure was not contrary to the parties' agreement, and the damages award did not offend fundamental principles of justice and fairness.

The plaintiff sought to examine the Honourable John Manley, a Member of Parliament, for discovery in a civil action.

The motion judge ordered the Member to attend no sooner than 15 days after the commencement of Parliament's summer recess, finding that parliamentary privilege against testifying only applied while Parliament was actually sitting and for 14 days after adjournment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the privilege of testimonial immunity extends throughout a parliamentary session, as well as 40 days before a session begins and 40 days after it ends.

The court concluded that any changes to this privilege must be enacted by Parliament, not the courts.

The appellant requested access to personal information held by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS).

CSIS refused to disclose the information, claiming exemptions under the Privacy Act for national security and foreign confidences.

The appellant challenged the constitutionality of s. 51 of the Privacy Act, which mandates in camera and ex parte hearings when these exemptions are claimed.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the mandatory ex parte provision did not violate s. 7 of the Charter.

However, the mandatory in camera provision violated s. 2(b) of the Charter and was not saved by s. 1 because it was overly broad.

The Court read down s. 51(2)(a) to apply only to the ex parte submissions.

On a cross-appeal, the Court held that the law enforcement exemption in s. 22(1)(b) is not limited to current investigations.

The respondent filed complaints with the Commissioner of Official Languages regarding language rights violations.

During the investigation, witnesses were promised confidentiality.

The respondent later requested access to the personal information in the investigation files under the Privacy Act.

The Commissioner refused to disclose certain interview notes, relying on the exemption in s. 22(1)(b) of the Privacy Act for information that could reasonably be expected to be injurious to lawful investigations.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the exemption can apply to concluded investigations to protect future ones, the Commissioner failed to establish a reasonable expectation of injury in this specific case.

The Court ordered the disclosure of the personal information but denied access to non-personal information.

Following a successful appeal, the appellants sought costs.

The Court of Appeal fixed the appellants' costs at $10,000, inclusive of the costs of the stay motion, disbursements, and GST.

The appellants appealed a judgment giving effect to a Letter of Request issued by a United States District Court.

The Letter of Request sought documentary production and oral discovery from the appellants, who were non-parties to the US litigation involving alleged misappropriation of trade secrets by a former employee.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding the scope of the requested discovery overly broad and unduly burdensome, as it risked exposing the non-party's own trade secrets without a mechanism to ensure relevance.

The court limited the scope of discovery to unobjected categories until the respondent disclosed particulars of the allegedly misappropriated trade secrets.

Appeal from a Federal Court of Appeal judgment setting aside a Human Rights Tribunal decision that had found discrimination in the denial of bereavement leave to a federal employee seeking leave to attend the funeral of his same-sex partner's father.

The Supreme Court majority held that the interpretation of 'family status' under the Canadian Human Rights Act was a question of law reviewable for correctness under s. 28 of the Federal Court Act.

On the merits, the majority concluded that, at the material time, 'family status' did not include same-sex relationships and that reading it otherwise would indirectly introduce protection for sexual orientation that Parliament had not then enacted.

The dissent would have deferred to the Tribunal's broad and purposive interpretation and would have reinstated the finding of discrimination.

The appellant sought a patent for a new soybean variety developed through artificial cross-breeding.

The Commissioner of Patents and the Federal Court of Appeal rejected the application.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court held that the appellant failed to meet the disclosure requirements under s. 36(1) of the Patent Act.

The specification did not adequately describe the steps involved in the cross-breeding process to allow a person skilled in the art to reproduce the invention.

The Court further held that merely depositing a sample of the seeds did not satisfy the statutory disclosure requirement.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was charged under a Calgary municipal by-law for being on a street for the purpose of prostitution.

She challenged the constitutional validity of the by-law, arguing it invaded the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over criminal law.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the by-law was ultra vires the province and the municipality, as its pith and substance was an attempt to control or punish prostitution rather than to regulate street use or public nuisance.

The appeal was allowed and the acquittal restored.

The respondent, an unmarried mother, voluntarily surrendered her child for adoption.

The day after the surrender was signed, the child was placed for adoption.

The respondent subsequently attempted to withdraw her consent.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that under s. 15(6) of The Child Welfare Act, the right to withdraw a voluntary surrender is conditional upon the child not having been placed for adoption.

Since the child had already been placed, the respondent was not entitled to the return of the child.

The appeal was allowed.