Bora Laskin

The appellants appealed their convictions for fraud, arguing that the trial judge erred on questions of fact.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judgment, which had been confirmed by the Court of Appeal.

The appellant husband appealed a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal regarding the division of matrimonial assets, specifically a joint farming operation and inherited farm land owned separately by the wife.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal from the bench, finding no ground to set aside the judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal, which held that the husband was not entitled to one half of the inflationary increment of the land's value.

The respondent created a deed of donation and trust in 1953 for the benefit of her unborn children as primary beneficiaries, and her sisters as secondary beneficiaries.

She later challenged the validity of the trust, arguing that gifts to unborn children and gifts in contemplation of death were void under the Civil Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trust was valid.

The Court found that under Quebec trust law, the trustee holds a sui generis property right in the trust property, removing the need for beneficiaries to exist at the time of creation.

The Court also held that the gift to the secondary beneficiaries was valid and not a gift in contemplation of death, as the donor had irrevocably divested herself of the property.

The Commission des droits de la personne investigated the dismissal of two employees following an unfavourable RCMP report.

The Commission ordered an RCMP officer to produce documents, but the Solicitor General of Canada filed an affidavit objecting on national security grounds under s. 41(2) of the Federal Court Act.

The Commission dismissed the objection, prompting the Attorney General of Canada to seek a writ of evocation.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Commission's appeal, holding that the Commission is a court within the meaning of s. 41(2), the affidavit was sufficient, and the absolute Crown privilege created by the provision is constitutionally valid and not barred by the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The appellant was found intoxicated in the driver's seat of his parked vehicle.

He had previously arranged for someone else to drive the vehicle and had no intention of setting it in motion.

He was acquitted at trial on the basis that he lacked the intention to drive, but the Court of Appeal reversed the acquittal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that an intention to set the vehicle in motion is not an essential element of the offence of having care or control of a motor vehicle under section 236 of the Criminal Code.

The presumption in section 237(1)(a) is purely evidentiary and does not import an intent to drive into the substantive offence.

Two firefighters were compulsorily retired at age 60 pursuant to a collective agreement.

They filed complaints under The Ontario Human Rights Code alleging age discrimination.

The employer argued that the mandatory retirement age was a bona fide occupational qualification under s. 4(6) of the Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the employer failed to adduce sufficient evidence, such as statistical and medical data, to justify the mandatory retirement age.

The Court also held that parties cannot contract out of the Code's provisions through a collective agreement, as it is a public statute enacted for the benefit of the community.

The respondent company distributed catalogues free of charge to customers in New Brunswick.

The province amended its Social Services and Education Tax Act to retroactively tax promotional distributors for the free distribution of goods.

The company argued the tax was indirect and therefore ultra vires the province.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the tax was direct, as it was unrelated to any purchases made from the catalogues and there was no traceable way the tax could be passed on.

The appeal was allowed and the tax was declared intra vires.

The appellants, large apple producers, challenged the authority of the Agricultural Stabilization Board to set minimum and maximum limits on the quantities of apples eligible for subsidy payments under the Agricultural Stabilization Act.

The Federal Court of Appeal held that the Board had the implicit authority to set such limits.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's broad duties and powers under the Act were sufficient to enable it to set quantity limits for subsidy payments in the interest of a workable price stabilization program, especially in the absence of any preclusion in the Act or regulations.

The appellant appealed from a judgment dismissing appeals from orders prohibiting the prosecution of the respondents for killing seals on a Sunday, contrary to section 15 of the pre-Confederation Newfoundland Seal Fishery Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that section 15 fell within the exclusive legislative competence of the federal Parliament under its jurisdiction over Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries.

The Court found that federal Seal Protection Regulations, which did not prohibit Sunday hunting, altered the pre-Confederation law and rendered section 15 ineffective.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Attorney General of British Columbia appealed a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal which held that provisions of the Family Relations Act conferring jurisdiction on the Provincial Court over guardianship, custody, access, occupancy of the family residence, and non-entry orders were ultra vires the province under s. 96 of the British North America Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part, holding that it is within the authority of the province to confer jurisdiction on the Provincial Court respecting guardianship of the person of the child and custody of or access to the child.

However, the Court held that conferring jurisdiction respecting orders concerning occupancy and use of the family residence and the making of non-entry orders was ultra vires.

The appellant was convicted of arson after his house burned down.

At trial, the Crown introduced statements made to police by a friend of the appellant, who admitted to setting the fire for money provided by the appellant.

The friend died before trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while declarations against penal interest by an unavailable witness may be admissible to exculpate an accused, they cannot be admitted when they inculpate the accused, as this deprives the accused of the right to cross-examination.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The respondent, a journalist, sought access to search warrants and supporting informations issued by a justice of the peace.

The appellants denied access, arguing the documents were not available for public inspection.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that after a search warrant has been executed, and objects found are brought before a justice, members of the public are entitled to inspect the warrant and the information upon which it was issued.

The Court affirmed the open court principle, ruling that curtailment of public accessibility is justified only where necessary to protect social values of superordinate importance, such as protecting the innocent when a search yields nothing.

The appellant insurer appealed a decision holding it liable under an insurance policy for goods stolen from a truck driven by a temporary employee of the respondent cartage company.

The insurer argued that the trial judge erred in placing the onus on the insurer to prove the applicability of an exclusion clause for employee infidelity, in finding that infidelity requires more than simple negligence, and in his application of the standard of proof.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, affirming that the onus is on the insurer to prove an exclusion clause applies, that infidelity imports a moral element, and that requiring a degree of proof commensurate with the gravity of the allegation does not depart from the balance of probabilities standard in civil cases.

The appellant was convicted of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

He appealed on two grounds: first, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because he had not validly re-elected for a trial by judge alone under s. 492 of the Criminal Code; and second, that the trial judge failed to follow the mandatory two-phase procedure under s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the appellant had validly waived the procedural requirements of s. 492 through his counsel.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on the second ground, finding that the trial judge's failure to make a finding on possession before requiring the accused to address the purpose of possession was a fatal error that could not be cured by s. 613(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant airlines challenged the legality of fees exacted by the federal Minister of Transport for telecommunication and en route navigation services provided by facilities within Canada for flights over the polar and North Atlantic routes.

The flights did not land in Canada.

The appellants argued that the fees violated the Chicago Convention and that the Aeronautics Act did not authorize the collection of fees for flights outside Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that the Chicago Convention did not apply to invalidate the fees and that section 5 of the Aeronautics Act authorized the prescription and collection of charges for services provided in respect of any aircraft, regardless of whether the flight was within Canada.

The appeal concerned the admissibility of lawfully intercepted private telephone conversations between spouses in a criminal prosecution.

The majority held that the conjoint effect of s. 178.16(5) of the Criminal Code and s. 4(3) of the Canada Evidence Act preserved the privilege over marital communications, relying in part on the equally authoritative French version of the provision.

The intercepted conversations between the spouses should therefore have been excluded as against the wife.

The appeal was allowed with respect to one appellant and dismissed with respect to the other.

The deceased applied for life insurance, paid a premium, and received a conditional insurance agreement.

He died before a policy was issued or his insurability was determined.

The insurer denied the widow's claim, arguing insurability was a condition precedent to coverage.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the agreement provided interim insurance subject to defeasance, applying the contra proferentem rule to the contract of adhesion.

The Court also found the insurer failed to meet the onus of proving the deceased was uninsurable at the time of application.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant purchased a transport business and applied for a transfer of its extra-provincial operating licence.

While the application was pending, the appellant was granted a temporary licence.

The Ontario Highway Transport Board recommended refusing the transfer, but the Minister delayed his decision for several years.

When the Minister finally refused the transfer, he based his decision on the appellant's failure to show current financial stability but refused to accept further submissions.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and quashed the Minister's decision, holding that the Minister breached his duty to act fairly by requiring up-to-date proof of financial stability while simultaneously refusing to entertain further submissions.

The appellant, who had been awarded custody of her children, sought to locate them after they were abducted by her husband.

She obtained an order directing the respondent telecommunications company to provide telephone records to the court under s. 26 of the Family Law Reform Act, 1978.

The Court of Appeal set aside the order.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the order went beyond the scope of the statutory authority and the inherent powers of the court, taking on an inquisitional nature beyond the traditional role of courts in inter partes proceedings.

The appellant, who was awarded custody of her children, sought an order compelling Revenue Canada to disclose the address of her former husband, who had abducted the children.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the statutory confidentiality provisions in section 241 of the Income Tax Act preclude disclosure in civil proceedings.

The Court found no power to qualify these provisions and noted that the exceptions in section 241(4)(c) did not apply.