Bastarache

The appellants were charged with driving 'over 80' after failing breathalyzer tests.

At trial, they adduced expert 'straddle evidence' indicating that, based on their drinking patterns and average alcohol elimination rates, their blood alcohol concentrations could have been either above or below the legal limit at the time of driving.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that straddle evidence does not rebut the statutory presumption in s. 258(1)(d.1) of the Criminal Code, as it merely confirms the accused consumed enough alcohol to reach a level exceeding 80 mg and does not tend to show the concentration was below the legal limit.

The appeals were dismissed and the convictions/orders for new trials were upheld.

The appellant telecommunications company sought an exemption from two production orders requiring it to produce call data records for criminal investigations, arguing that compliance without compensation was unreasonable.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Criminal Code production order scheme does not permit a judge to order compensation for compliance.

A judge can only consider the financial aspect of compliance when deciding whether to grant an exemption on the basis that the financial burden is unreasonable.

The Court found that the appellant had not established that the cost of compliance was unreasonable in this case, and dismissed the appeal.

The Crown alleged the respondent breached her conditional sentence by violating curfew and possessing stolen property.

At the breach hearing, the Crown relied solely on a supervisor's report that attached an unsigned police report summarizing witness statements, without including signed statements from the witnesses themselves.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that under s. 742.6(4) of the Criminal Code, the Crown may use documentary evidence to prove a breach, but the report must include signed witness statements if the supervisor lacks personal knowledge of the material facts.

Because the hearing judge had no admissible evidence to base the breach finding on, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm following a single-vehicle accident.

At trial, the main issue was whether the appellant or another survivor was driving.

The trial judge admitted prior consistent statements of the other survivor to rebut allegations of recent fabrication.

The appellant appealed, arguing the trial judge improperly used these statements for the truth of their contents and to bolster general credibility.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly understood the limited use of prior consistent statements and did not rely on them for the truth of their contents.

The appellant, a non-unionized public employee holding office 'at pleasure', was dismissed without cause and given four months' pay in lieu of notice.

He grieved the dismissal, and an adjudicator ordered his reinstatement, finding a breach of procedural fairness and interpreting the governing legislation as requiring cause for dismissal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the adjudicator's statutory interpretation was unreasonable and that public employees governed by a contract of employment are not owed a public law duty of procedural fairness upon dismissal.

In doing so, the Court fundamentally restructured the framework for judicial review of administrative decisions, collapsing the three previous standards of review into two: correctness and reasonableness.

The appellant, a childcare worker, was sued in negligence after a child suffered a brain injury in her care.

During the civil proceedings, the police investigated the appellant criminally.

The appellant sought to prevent the disclosure of her civil discovery evidence to the police, relying on the implied undertaking rule.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the implied undertaking rule applies to discovery evidence that may disclose criminal conduct, and that parties cannot generally disclose such evidence to the police without a court order.

The Court allowed the appeal, preventing the disclosure of the discovery transcripts to the police without a proper search warrant.

The appellants, owners of hotels, restaurants, and bars in Jasper National Park, challenged the annual business licence fees required to sell alcoholic beverages, arguing they constituted an ultra vires tax rather than a valid regulatory charge.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the fees possessed characteristics of a tax, they were in pith and substance regulatory charges connected to the regulatory scheme governing the administration and operation of the park.

The Court found a sufficient relationship between the fees paid and the regulatory scheme, as the revenues generated did not exceed the costs of operating the park, and the appellants benefited from the park's regulation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death after his vehicle crossed the centre line into oncoming traffic, killing three people.

The trial judge acquitted the appellant, finding that his momentary lapse of attention did not constitute a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent driver.

The Court of Appeal set aside the acquittals and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the acquittals, holding that a momentary lapse of attention, without more, cannot establish the actus reus and mens rea of the offence of dangerous driving.

The respondent was sexually assaulted by a prison official while incarcerated.

After his release, he developed a heroin addiction and spent 12 of the next 15 years in prison.

He successfully sued the province for damages, including past and future wage loss.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the respondent was not entitled to compensation for wage loss during his periods of incarceration.

Applying the ex turpi causa doctrine, the Court found that awarding damages for time spent in prison would create an inconsistency between criminal and civil law, effectively providing a rebate on a lawfully imposed criminal sanction.

The appeal was allowed to exclude wage loss during incarceration, and the cross-appeal regarding the reduction of future wage loss was dismissed.

A 14-year-old uninsured driver stole a car and, while being pursued by a police officer, collided with another vehicle, killing its driver.

The trial judge found the uninsured driver 90% at fault and the police officer 10% at fault.

The Attorney General of British Columbia appealed, arguing its vicarious liability under the Police Act should be limited to the 10% fault attributed to the officer.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that because the officer would have been jointly and severally liable under the Negligence Act but for the statutory immunity in the Police Act, the Attorney General steps into the officer's shoes and is jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the indivisible damages.

The appellant, a teenager, was convicted of two counts of sexual assault against a child he was babysitting.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's evidence, finding the complainant credible before assessing the appellant's testimony.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge misapprehended the appellant's evidence and misapplied the burden of proof by shifting the onus to the accused after accepting the complainant's evidence.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal that upheld his convictions and dismissed his motion to adduce fresh evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the motion to adduce fresh evidence did not meet the established criteria and that the appellant failed to show the guilty verdict was unreasonable or that a miscarriage of justice occurred.

The parties entered into a corollary relief agreement during their civil divorce, which included a commitment to appear before rabbinical authorities to obtain a Jewish religious divorce (get).

The respondent husband refused to provide the get for 15 years.

The appellant wife sued for damages for breach of contract.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the agreement was a valid and binding civil obligation under Quebec law.

The Court further held that the husband could not rely on his freedom of religion to avoid paying damages, as the harm caused to the wife and the public interest in enforcing valid contracts and protecting equality rights outweighed any infringement on his religious freedom.

The trial judge's award of $47,500 in damages was restored.

The appellant was arrested at a secluded marijuana plantation along with four others.

He was convicted at trial of illegal production of marijuana.

The appellant appealed, arguing the verdict was unreasonable as it was based solely on his mere presence at the scene.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the conviction rested on the cumulative effect of his apprehension at the scene, the rejection of his explanation, the nature of the offence, and other circumstantial evidence, rather than mere presence.

Domtar purchased a recovery boiler from C.E. (now ABB and Alstom).

The boiler's superheater developed leaks and cracks due to the use of H-style tie welds.

Domtar replaced the superheater and sued C.E. for latent defects and breach of the duty to inform.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the excessive cracking constituted a latent defect.

As a manufacturer, C.E. was presumed to know of the defect and failed to rebut this presumption, rendering its limitation of liability clause inapplicable.

C.E. was held liable for the replacement costs.

The Court also dismissed the appeals regarding the insurers, finding Chubb liable on its performance bond and Arkwright not liable due to a latent defect exclusion clause.

The accused was convicted of attempting to obstruct justice after a fire in a residential building he managed.

The trial judge found he attempted to falsify smoke alarm inspection records and rejected his testimony.

The Court of Appeal set aside the conviction, reasoning his conduct could be explained by a desire to have perfect records rather than an intent to obstruct.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, holding that an appellate court cannot acquit based on speculation about an alternative explanation that is flatly contradicted by the accused's own testimony.

The appellants were convicted of various offences, including murder and criminal negligence causing death, relating to the death of their infant son.

The convictions were largely based on the expert testimony of a Crown witness.

Following the dismissal of their appeals by the Court of Appeal, fresh expert evidence became available that discredited the Crown's expert.

The Supreme Court of Canada admitted the fresh evidence and ordered a new trial on all counts, finding that the unreliable expert evidence was central to the Crown's case and could have affected the jury's verdicts on both the homicide and non-homicide charges.

The appellant was arrested for second degree murder and advised of his right to counsel.

During police interviews, he repeatedly asserted his right to silence, stating he did not want to talk.

The interviewing officer persisted in questioning him, and the appellant eventually made incriminating admissions.

The trial judge admitted the statements, finding them voluntary and not obtained in breach of section 7 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that police persistence in questioning a detainee who has asserted the right to silence does not automatically violate section 7, provided the statements remain voluntary and the detainee is not denied the freedom to choose whether to speak.

The respondents were catastrophically injured when two individuals dropped a large boulder from a highway overpass onto their vehicle.

The wrongdoers had used a vehicle to transport the boulders to the overpass.

The respondents sought to recover damages from their own insurer under the inadequately insured motorist coverage, arguing the injuries arose from the use or operation of the wrongdoers' vehicle.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the claim did not arise from the use or operation of a motor vehicle, as the rock throwing was an intervening act severable from the use of the vehicle.

The appeal was allowed and coverage was denied.

The victim was shot by a hunter who had stopped his truck, left the engine running, and negligently fired at what he thought was a deer.

The victim sought to recover damages from the hunter's automobile insurer under s. 239(1) of the Insurance Act, arguing the injuries arose directly or indirectly from the use or operation of the vehicle.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the shooting was an act independent of the use or operation of the truck, breaking the chain of causation.

The insurer's appeal was allowed, and the claim against the insurer was dismissed.