Bertha Wilson

The appellant, a Canadian citizen, was extradited from Brazil to Canada to face fraud charges under an arrangement that prohibited his prosecution for other offences committed prior to the extradition request.

After serving his sentence for the initial charges, the appellant remained in Canada and was subsequently charged with additional offences committed before his extradition.

He argued that the extradition arrangement provided perpetual immunity from prosecution for those prior offences.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the immunity under the Rule of Specialty and the extradition arrangement only lasts until the fugitive has had a reasonable opportunity to return to the requested state.

The respondent's trial was discontinued due to exceptional publicity from statements made in the National Assembly regarding the defence and a witness's credibility.

Before a new trial date was set, the respondent successfully moved for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that a stay of proceedings was premature as the possibility of selecting an impartial jury could only be determined at the jury selection stage.

A constitutional appeal concerning whether Quebec occupational health and safety provisions governing protective re-assignment of a pregnant worker applied to a federal telecommunications undertaking.

The Court held that the provincial scheme, though aimed at worker health and safety, in pith and substance regulated working conditions, labour relations, and the management and operation of undertakings.

As applied to federal undertakings, those matters fell within Parliament's exclusive jurisdiction, rendering the provincial provisions constitutionally inapplicable.

The Court rejected reliance on the double aspect theory and held it unnecessary to decide the operational conflict issue.

The appellant's mandatary took possession of the debtor's immovable property before the debtor made an assignment in bankruptcy.

The property was sold, and the respondent registered a privilege under provincial law.

The Court of Appeal applied provincial law to rank the respondent ahead of the appellant.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that once bankruptcy occurs, the federal Bankruptcy Act determines the priority of claims, even if the secured creditor realizes its security outside the bankruptcy proceedings.

The Minister of Health and Community Services appealed a decision of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal that set aside a guardianship order and substituted a custody order for two children in protective care.

The Court of Appeal had held that the Minister must prove parental moral turpitude and name specific adoptive parents to obtain a guardianship order.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and reinstated the guardianship order, holding that the sole criterion under the Family Services Act is the best interests of the child.

The Court found that requiring proof of moral turpitude or the naming of specific adoptive parents contradicts the language and spirit of the Act.

The appellant was charged with counselling theft and fraud after offering a hotel security guard money to obtain confidential information containing the names and addresses of hotel employees for a union.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that confidential information does not qualify as property for the purposes of the theft provisions in the Criminal Code, as it cannot be taken or converted in a manner that deprives the owner.

The Court also held that the conduct did not amount to fraud, as the hotel had no intention of dealing commercially with the information and thus faced no risk of economic deprivation.

The appeal was allowed and the acquittals restored.

Following a collision between two Canadian National Railway trains in Quebec, an inspector from the provincial Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail initiated an investigation under the provincial Act respecting occupational health and safety.

The railway company challenged the investigation, arguing the provincial statute could not constitutionally apply to a federal undertaking.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the provincial occupational health and safety legislation, because of its preventive nature, directly regulates the working conditions and management of the undertaking.

Consequently, the investigative powers under the Act are wholly inapplicable to an interprovincial railway undertaking.

The appellants appealed their convictions for income tax evasion, arguing that evidence obtained prior to the enactment of the Charter under a provision of the Income Tax Act later found to be unconstitutional should be excluded.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Ontario Court of Appeal that the Charter does not apply retrospectively to searches and seizures conducted before it came into force.

The appellant appealed from a judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal which allowed an appeal from the appellant's acquittal on charges under the Combines Investigation Act and ordered a new trial.

The issue was the admissibility of evidence discovered as a result of an unconstitutional search.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Court of Appeal's exercise of its jurisdiction to review the trial judge's finding under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellant appealed as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Applying the principles from Collins, Sieben, and Hamill, the Court found no error in the lower court's exercise of its jurisdiction to review the trial judge's finding under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The appeal was dismissed from the bench.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal that set aside a stay of proceedings entered by the trial judge and ordered a new trial.

The stay had been entered based on allegations that the Crown's conduct at trial infringed the appellants' rights to fundamental justice.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Court of Appeal's exercise of its jurisdiction to review the trial judge's decision.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal which found its operations constituted a scheme of pyramid selling under the Combines Investigation Act and issued a prohibition order.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, adopting the reasons of the Federal Court of Appeal.

The appellant was stopped by a police officer who detected an odour of alcohol and demanded a breath sample for a roadside screening device.

The appellant refused and was charged with failing to comply with a roadside demand.

He argued his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter was infringed.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that a roadside breath demand constitutes a detention under s. 10 of the Charter, triggering the right to counsel.

However, the Court concluded that the limitation on the right to counsel implied by the requirement to provide a sample 'forthwith' is a reasonable limit prescribed by law and demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter, given the importance of deterring impaired driving.

The appellant was stopped at random by a police officer during a spot check.

The officer demanded a breath sample after detecting alcohol, which the appellant refused.

The appellant challenged the constitutionality of the random stop and the demand for his licence and insurance.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the random stop constituted arbitrary detention under section 9 of the Charter, it was a reasonable limit demonstrably justified under section 1 due to the pressing need to combat impaired driving.

The Court also found that the demand for documents did not violate section 8 as there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in such documents.

The appellant's first two trials on a charge of criminal negligence causing death ended with hung juries.

The trial judge stayed a third trial on the grounds that it would constitute an abuse of process and a violation of section 7 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that while prosecutorial misconduct is not an essential element of abuse of process, a third trial in these circumstances does not violate the community's sense of fair play and decency.

The appellant appealed a conviction for conspiracy to possess a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking, challenging the validity of a wiretap authorization.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the authorization adequately described the manner of interception in accordance with the Criminal Code, as established in the Wiretap Reference and Lyons v. The Queen.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Manitoba Court of Appeal that set aside convictions for indecency and sexual assault and entered an acquittal.

The Supreme Court of Canada quashed the appeal, finding that the Crown was unable to demonstrate that the dissent in the Court of Appeal was based on a question of law.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal, which had set aside an acquittal on a charge of conspiracy to traffic in a narcotic and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal for the reasons given by the Court of Appeal of Alberta.

The appellant was laid off due to a strike by another local of his union at his place of employment.

He applied for unemployment insurance benefits but was denied on the basis that he was 'financing' the strike under s. 44(2)(a) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, because a portion of his mandatory union dues was diverted to the International Union's strike fund.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that 'financing' requires active and voluntary involvement by the claimant.

The mandatory payment of union dues did not constitute financing the labour dispute, and the appellant was therefore entitled to benefits.

The appellant brought an action for defamation against the respondent newspaper after it published an article identifying him as a representative of the Jewish Mafia.

A jury awarded the appellant $135,000 in non-pecuniary damages, which the trial judge affirmed.

The Court of Appeal reduced the award to $13,500, finding the jury's amount unreasonable.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the trial judgment, holding that the jury's assessment was not so grossly inflated as to be unreasonable in the circumstances.