Brian Anthony Crane

The Crown applied for leave to appeal a trial judge's dismissal of a motion for a mistrial in a manslaughter case.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the application for leave to appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada granted the motion to quash, holding that it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal at this stage of the proceedings.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada sought certification as the bargaining agent for Canadian civilian employees working at a United States naval base in Newfoundland.

The United States claimed sovereign immunity from the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Relations Board.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the bare contracts of employment had commercial aspects, the certification proceedings and the imposition of a collective bargaining regime would unacceptably interfere with the sovereign management and operation of the military base.

The Court concluded that the proceedings did not relate to a commercial activity within the meaning of the State Immunity Act, and therefore the United States was entitled to state immunity.

The appellants appealed judgments declaring unconstitutional a hospital regulation requiring medical staff retirement at age 65 unless an exception was granted.

The principal issue was whether the hospital, in adopting and administering the regulation, was subject to the Charter under s. 32.

The majority held the hospital was not part of government and its internal management regulation therefore fell outside the Charter's ambit.

Assuming the Charter applied, the majority further held the regulation and its application were discriminatory under s. 15(1) but justified under s. 1 because they were rationally connected to maintaining excellence in a major acute care teaching hospital and minimally impairing in a resource-allocation context.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal regarding an inmate disciplinary court matter.

The Supreme Court of Canada quashed the appeal, finding that the issue had become moot due to three factors, two of which arose after leave to appeal was granted.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from a decision of the Saskatchewan courts.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The applicants brought a motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The appellant owned land that the respondent City intended to acquire for a public park.

The City adopted statutory plans indicating this intention but did not rezone the land exclusively for park use under its land use by-law, which would have triggered a statutory obligation to acquire the land within six months under s. 70 of The Planning Act.

The appellant sought an order of mandamus to compel the City to expropriate the land, arguing that the statutory plans effectively designated the land for park use.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that a designation under a statutory plan is distinct from a designation under a land use by-law, and the City's actions did not constitute bad faith but were a legitimate exercise of planning powers.

The appellant union filed a complaint that the respondent school board failed to make every reasonable effort to conclude a collective agreement.

The Nova Scotia Labour Relations Board found the employer failed to bargain in good faith and ordered both parties to submit specific proposals, including wage increases and union security clauses.

On a stated case, the Supreme Court of Canada held that while the Board has broad remedial powers to secure compliance with the duty to bargain, it cannot impose the substantive terms of a collective agreement.

The Court also found the Board lacked statutory authority to award compensation or costs for a breach of the duty to bargain.

The Lieutenant-Governor in Council of New Brunswick referred questions to the Court of Appeal regarding the constitutional validity of establishing a unified criminal court with provincially appointed judges to try all indictable offences.

The Court of Appeal answered the questions in the affirmative.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the proposal was unconstitutional, as it would effectively transform an inferior court into a superior court, thereby depriving the Governor General of the power to appoint judges under section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Crown in right of Canada brought an action for possession of lands occupied by the appellant, claiming they were part of an Indian reserve.

The lands had been absolutely surrendered by the Indians to the Crown in 1895 to be sold, but were never disposed of.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the absolute surrender extinguished the Indian interest and removed the burden of section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Consequently, the beneficial interest in the lands reverted fully to the Province, leaving the federal Crown with no enforceable interest or status to bring the action for possession.

The appeal was allowed and the action dismissed.

The Province of Ontario and the predecessor in title of Boise Cascade Canada entered into an agreement in 1905 to develop hydro-electric power on the Rainy River.

The agreement required the company to supply the Town of Fort Frances with electrical power at a rate not exceeding $14 per horsepower per annum.

The agreement created a reserve of 4,000 horsepower for use on the Canadian side.

The Town's energy consumption eventually exceeded the 4,000 horsepower reserve.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the company's obligation to supply power to the Town at the fixed price of $14 per horsepower per annum was limited to the 4,000 horsepower reserved under the agreement.

The appellants were joint tenants of land that the respondent city purported to expropriate by by-law.

One appellant, a non-resident, was not served with notice of the council meeting within the time limits prescribed by the Expropriation Procedure Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that where a municipality exercises a statutory power to expropriate land, the statutory conditions for the exercise of that power must be strictly complied with.

The failure to properly serve the non-resident owner rendered the expropriation by-law void, not merely voidable, and beyond the reach of curative statutory provisions.

Atco Ltd. made a takeover bid for Calgary Power Ltd., which sought an order from the Public Utilities Board of Alberta to restrain the takeover.

The Board found Atco to be an 'owner of a public utility' under the Public Utilities Board Act, giving it jurisdiction to intervene.

Atco appealed, arguing it was not an owner.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the statutory definition of 'owner' includes a person with the power to control the utility, extending to the operational realities of control, and that the proposed share acquisition constituted a 'union' requiring Board consent.

The appellant commenced an action to recover contributions from co-sureties for a bank debt he had retired.

The trial judge and Court of Appeal held the action was statute-barred, calculating the limitation period from the date judgment was rendered against the appellant.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the limitation period for a surety seeking contribution runs from the date the surety pays more than their pro rata share of the debt, or when liability is finally ascertained after all appeals are exhausted.

As the action was commenced within six years of these dates, it was not statute-barred.

A motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from a decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal was dismissed.

The United States District Court sought judicial assistance via letters rogatory under s. 43 of the Canada Evidence Act to obtain documents and tape recordings for a criminal tax evasion trial in Florida.

The Alberta Court of Appeal held that s. 43 did not permit an order for the production of documents unless it was ancillary to oral testimony.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that s. 43 should be given a broad, liberal construction in the interests of comity and permits an order for the production of documents alone.

The Court also held that illegally intercepted telephone conversations could be disclosed at the s. 43 hearing, provided they were only used against accused persons who were not parties to the communications.

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 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 suffered severe brain damage in a motor vehicle accident caused by the respondent's negligence.

The trial judge awarded $135,000 for non-pecuniary damages, exceeding the $100,000 upper limit established by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 'trilogy' cases, citing the severity of the injuries.

The Court of Appeal reduced the award to $100,000.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the reduction, holding that the $100,000 limit is not based on the gravity of the injury alone but on the functional approach of providing reasonable solace.

The Court confirmed that while inflation may justify exceeding the limit, it was not a significant factor in this case.

The appellant, Nova, appealed decisions of the Public Utilities Board of Alberta varying the rates it charged for transporting natural gas.

The respondent producers had complained about Nova's depreciation rates and income tax calculations.

The Board ordered variations to these components retroactively to the beginning of the year.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board had the authority to make retroactive orders to the date of the complaint, could deal with specific components of the rates without a general inquiry into overall reasonableness, and had jurisdiction to determine the method of calculating income taxes for rate-making purposes without improperly directing how the company paid its actual taxes.