Brian John Gover

The applicants sought judicial review of orders made by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario directing that a hearing proceed in camera and restricting the attendance of counsel for interested persons.

The Divisional Court quashed the orders, emphasizing that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the common law strongly favour open hearings.

The Court found that the Board failed to consider less restrictive measures to address its concerns regarding the presence of counsel while witnesses were excluded.

The applicant sought judicial review of three orders made by a panel of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that directed a hearing to proceed in camera and excluded counsel for interested persons.

The Divisional Court quashed the orders, emphasizing that section 9(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the common law strongly favour open hearings.

The Court found that the Board failed to consider less restrictive measures to address its concerns regarding the presence of counsel while witnesses were excluded.

The youth appellant was charged with property offences.

The youth court judge stayed the proceedings, finding that Ontario's alternative measures program under the Young Offenders Act violated sections 7 and 15(1) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal overturned the stay.

Relying on its concurrent decision in R. v. S.(G.), the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the program's admission criteria do not infringe the Charter.

The appellant, a lawyer and undischarged bankrupt, pleaded guilty to fraud and breach of trust for misappropriating client funds.

The sentencing judge ordered him to pay compensation to the Law Society, which had partially reimbursed the victims, and to one victim for the balance of his loss.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the compensation order required the prior consent of the bankruptcy court.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that a compensation order under the Criminal Code is a personal order that does not require bankruptcy court consent to be made, though consent is required before it can be enforced against the bankrupt's property.

The Court also affirmed that the Law Society is a 'person aggrieved' through subrogation.

The appellant was charged with failing to comply with a roadside breath demand under s. 234.1 of the Criminal Code.

He argued the provision was inoperative because it had not been proclaimed in force in all provinces, allegedly violating equality before the law under the Canadian Bill of Rights and s. 7 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the non-universal application was justified by a valid federal objective related to provincial law enforcement priorities and resources.

The Court also held that s. 7 of the Charter could not be used to bypass the delayed implementation of equality rights under s. 15.