Brian Anthony Crane

The appellant lawyer represented two clients in unsuccessful applications to quash a municipal by-law.

The application judge ordered the lawyer to personally pay 40 percent of the respondent municipality's costs under Rule 57.07(1), finding his conduct and lack of preparation caused unnecessary costs.

The Court of Appeal allowed the lawyer's appeal and set aside the personal costs order, holding that the application judge erred in principle by failing to distinguish the lawyer's conduct from his clients' instructions, particularly where solicitor-client privilege was not waived, and by using hindsight to evaluate strategic decisions.

The appellants challenged a municipal by-law requiring all new exterior commercial signs to be bilingual in French and English.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that one appellant lacked standing as he did not reside or operate a business in the municipality.

For the second appellant, the Court found the by-law was intra vires the municipality's power to pass by-laws respecting social well-being under the Municipal Act, 2001.

Although the by-law infringed the appellant's freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter by compelling the use of a language, the Court held the infringement was justified under s. 1 as a reasonable limit to protect and promote the equality of the French and English languages.

The appellant, a Lieutenant-Colonel, was convicted of assault after pushing his wife during an argument where she threw his diploma on the floor.

He argued the force was justified under s. 39(1) of the Criminal Code as defence of personal property.

The military judge found the force used was excessive and disproportionate.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the military judge properly applied the principles of reasonable doubt and correctly assessed both subjective and objective factors in determining that the force used was more than necessary.

The municipality issued a call for tenders for equipment and operators, specifying that all equipment must be 1980 or newer.

The successful bidder submitted a bid promising 1980 equipment, but the serial numbers provided corresponded to older equipment.

An unsuccessful bidder informed the municipality of this discrepancy before the contract was awarded, but the municipality did not investigate and awarded the contract to the successful bidder.

The unsuccessful bidder sued the municipality for breach of Contract A. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the successful bid was compliant on its face, the municipality had no duty to investigate the bid, and the municipality's obligations under Contract A ended once Contract B was formed.

The respondent collective society sought to impose copyright liability on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) for music downloaded in Canada from foreign countries.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that ISPs acting merely as conduits for information communicated by others are protected from liability under s. 2.4(1)(b) of the Copyright Act.

The Court also ruled that the creation of temporary 'cache' copies for technical reasons of economy and efficiency falls within this protection.

Furthermore, the Court determined that the Copyright Act applies to international Internet transmissions that have a real and substantial connection to Canada, rejecting the view that a communication only occurs in Canada if it originates from a server located within the country.

The Crown obtained an ex parte order for a judicial investigative hearing under s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code in relation to the Air India bombings.

The application judge ordered the hearing to be held in camera and kept secret.

A newspaper reporter discovered the proceedings and sought access.

The hearing judge dismissed the application for access.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the newspaper's appeal in part, holding that the open court principle applies to s. 83.28 hearings.

While the initial ex parte application was properly held in camera, the existence of the order and the constitutional challenge should have been public.

The investigative hearing itself must be presumptively open, subject to the Dagenais/Mentuck test for publication bans or in camera orders.

The Crown sought an ex parte order under s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code to compel a Named Person to attend a judicial investigative hearing and answer questions regarding the Air India bombings.

The Named Person challenged the constitutionality of s. 83.28, arguing it violated the right against self-incrimination under s. 7 of the Charter and compromised judicial independence.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the provision, finding it procedural in nature, thus applicable retrospectively.

The Court held that s. 83.28 includes adequate safeguards, such as derivative use immunity, which must be extended to extradition and deportation hearings to comply with s. 7.

The Court also found that the provision does not compromise judicial independence, as judges retain their role in protecting the witness's constitutional rights.

The appellants, who suffered from chronic pain attributable to work-related injuries, challenged the constitutionality of provisions in the Nova Scotia Workers' Compensation Act and related regulations that excluded chronic pain from the regular workers' compensation system.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the constitutional validity of its enabling statute.

The Court further held that the blanket exclusion of chronic pain sufferers from the general compensation scheme violated section 15(1) of the Charter by imposing discriminatory differential treatment based on physical disability.

The infringement was not justified under section 1 of the Charter, as it did not minimally impair the rights of the affected workers.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal finding an Internet lottery scheme unlawful under the Criminal Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal from the bench, adopting the reasons of the Chief Justice of Prince Edward Island.

The appellants claimed that lands set aside for the Ross River Band in the Yukon Territory constituted a reserve under the Indian Act, entitling them to a tax exemption.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that no reserve was legally created because there was no intention to create a reserve on the part of Crown agents with the authority to bind the Crown.

The Court found that while lands were set aside for the band's use, the statutory framework and royal prerogative require both an act of setting apart and a clear intention to create a reserve, which was absent in this case.

The New Brunswick legislature enacted Bill 7, which abolished the system of supernumerary judges and replaced it with a panel of retired judges paid on a per diem basis.

The respondents, who were supernumerary judges, challenged the constitutionality of the legislation, arguing it violated the guarantees of judicial independence under s. 11(d) of the Charter and the Preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the legislation was unconstitutional because it violated the institutional dimension of financial security by eliminating an economic benefit without referring the matter to an independent, effective, and objective commission.

The Court suspended the declaration of invalidity for six months but allowed the respondents to benefit from it immediately.

The respondents' claim for damages was dismissed as there was no evidence of bad faith by the government.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the disclosure of customs information on travellers by Revenue Canada to the Canada Employment Insurance Commission.

The program aimed to identify individuals receiving employment insurance benefits while outside Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, adopting the reasons of the Federal Court of Appeal that the disclosure was authorized under the Privacy Act and the Customs Act.

The appellant received unemployment insurance benefits while holidaying outside Canada.

Upon returning, she filled out a Customs Declaration Form, and the information was disclosed to the Canada Unemployment Insurance Commission, which ordered repayment of the benefits.

The appellant argued this disclosure violated her right against unreasonable search or seizure under section 8 of the Charter, and that the disentitlement violated her mobility rights under section 6(1).

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in the disclosed customs information and no breach of mobility rights.

Following the release of reasons disposing of the appeals regarding an Indigenous land claim, the Court of Appeal determined the costs of the proceedings.

The court ordered the appellant to pay 50% of the federal and provincial crowns' costs of the appeals on a party and party basis, noting the federal crown's unsuccessful arguments regarding the validity of the land surrender.

The class representatives, including the railway company, were awarded 100% of their costs for both the summary judgment motions and the appeals on a party and party basis.

The court directed that all costs be assessed rather than fixed.

An Indigenous band appealed from a summary judgment disposition concerning reserve lands sold in the 19th century without a lawful formal surrender.

The Court of Appeal held that there had been no surrender and that the claim was not barred by statutory limitation periods, but concluded that declaratory and possessory relief should nevertheless be refused.

The court applied public law discretion and equitable doctrines, emphasizing the band's historical acquiescence, the extraordinary delay in asserting the land claim, and the reliance of innocent third-party landowners who had held and developed the properties for generations.

The band was left to pursue its damages claims against the Crown.

Several Indigenous moving parties sought leave to intervene in multiple appeals concerning Aboriginal rights and title issues.

The court held that three of the moving parties had a sufficient interest in the outcome and could usefully add to the issues, and granted intervention on strict conditions, including that the existing record would stand and a single factum be delivered.

A separate moving party seeking intervention primarily to challenge portions of Ontario's factum was refused leave because the court was not persuaded it would add anything materially new to the arguments already to be made by existing parties.

No costs were ordered.

The appellant suffered a lung injury in a mining accident and subsequently suffered a second lung injury during biopsy surgery intended to assist in the diagnosis and treatment of the work injury.

The appellant brought an action in negligence against the doctors and the health board.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions that the action was barred by workers' compensation legislation.

The respondent company operated a sand and gravel mine and was ordered by a development officer under the Planning Act to stop mining on a specific parcel of land and restore it.

The respondent did not appeal the order to the Development Appeal Board but failed to restore the site.

When charged with failing to comply with the order, the respondent argued by way of defence that it had a valid non-conforming use.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to determine the merits of the administrative order in a penal proceeding, as the Planning Act provided a comprehensive appeal mechanism that the respondent failed to utilize.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction restored.

The respondent, a government employee, was terminated while receiving short-term disability benefits.

He sued for wrongful dismissal and was awarded damages representing his salary for a 20-month notice period, with the Court of Appeal holding that disability benefits received during that period should not be deducted.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the employer's appeal, holding that the employment contract did not intend for the employee to receive both disability benefits and damages for wrongful dismissal simultaneously.

Consequently, the disability benefits received during the notice period must be deducted from the wrongful dismissal damages.