Brent B. Olthuis

The Government of British Columbia and a class of consumers brought separate actions against tobacco companies regarding the health impacts of smoking and 'light' cigarettes.

The tobacco companies issued third-party notices against the Government of Canada, claiming contribution and indemnity based on negligent misrepresentation, negligent design, failure to warn, and statutory liability.

Canada brought motions to strike the third-party claims for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed Canada's appeals and struck all third-party claims.

The Court held that Canada's alleged representations and design decisions regarding low-tar cigarettes were core government policy decisions immune from tort liability.

Furthermore, Canada did not qualify as a 'manufacturer' or 'supplier' under the relevant provincial statutes.

The appellant and three accomplices broke into a residence.

During the break and enter, the intruders repeatedly referred to having a gun.

A loaded handgun was later found in their getaway car.

The appellant was convicted of using a firearm while committing an indictable offence under s. 85(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that an offender 'uses' a firearm when they reveal its actual presence or immediate availability by words or conduct to facilitate an offence, and the weapon is in their physical possession or readily at hand.

The appellants appealed an order refusing to enjoin the respondents from pursuing a motion in the United States to access testimony and documents obtained through the US discovery process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no comity concerns or overriding policy issues that would warrant an injunction.

The Court held that the respondents were legitimately attempting to gather evidence in a foreign jurisdiction according to its rules, and that the US judge was in the best position to determine whether and how to vary the protective order.