Claire L'Heureux-Dubé

The appellant, a Convention refugee from Iran, was suspected of being an assassin for the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration issued an opinion under s. 53(1)(b) of the Immigration Act that the appellant constituted a danger to the security of Canada and faced only a minimal risk of harm if deported.

The appellant challenged the decision and the constitutionality of the deportation provisions.

Applying the framework from the companion case of Suresh, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the appellant did not make out a prima facie case of a substantial risk of torture.

The Court found the Minister's decision was not patently unreasonable and that the appellant was provided with adequate procedural protections consistent with the principles of fundamental justice.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent commenced an in rem action in the Federal Court to enforce a maritime lien against a Belgian ship, which was subsequently arrested.

The shipowner was then adjudged bankrupt in Belgium, and the appellant trustees obtained an order from the Quebec Superior Court recognizing the bankruptcy.

Despite this, the Federal Court granted default judgment and ordered the ship's sale.

The trustees then obtained a Quebec Superior Court order directing the sale proceeds to be paid to them, conflicting with the Federal Court's orders.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Quebec Superior Court had no authority to enjoin the Federal Court from exercising its maritime jurisdiction or to dispose of a ship already captured by the Federal Court's process.

A Belgian ship was arrested in Halifax by a U.S. creditor claiming a maritime lien for stevedoring services.

The ship's owner was subsequently adjudged bankrupt in Belgium, and the Belgian trustees sought a stay of the Canadian maritime proceedings in favour of the Belgian bankruptcy court.

The Federal Court refused the stay, recognizing the U.S. creditor's maritime lien as a secured claim under Canadian maritime law.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the trustees' appeal, holding that the Federal Court did not err in exercising its discretion to refuse the stay, balancing international comity against the rights of secured creditors under maritime law.

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.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder.

During deliberations, the jury was inadvertently provided with unedited transcripts containing submissions made in their absence regarding the admissibility of certain statements.

The trial judge refused to declare a mistrial, instead retrieving the transcripts and cautioning the jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not err in law in refusing to declare a mistrial, and that the curative proviso analysis was not necessary as no error of law or miscarriage of justice occurred.

The Osoyoos Indian Band sought to tax lands within its reserve that had been taken by the Province of British Columbia for an irrigation canal pursuant to an Order in Council under s. 35 of the Indian Act.

The Town of Oliver, which operated the canal, objected to the assessment.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Order in Council was ambiguous and should be interpreted as granting only a statutory easement, not a fee simple interest, in accordance with the Crown's fiduciary duty to minimally impair the Indian interest in reserve land.

Consequently, the lands remained 'in the reserve' and were subject to the Band's taxation jurisdiction under s. 83(1)(a) of the Indian Act.

The appellant brought a civil claim for damages arising from an acquitted first degree murder prosecution, alleging malicious prosecution by the provincial Attorney General.

The majority held that the exceptional threshold for lifting prosecutorial immunity was met because the prosecution lacked reasonable and probable cause and was motivated by an improper purpose arising from the mixing of public prosecutorial functions with private interests tied to related defamation litigation.

The Court found the identification evidence flagrantly inadequate, the surreptitiously recorded conversation likely inadmissible and devoid of probative value, and the prosecutorial conduct inconsistent with the Crown’s role as minister of justice.

The appeal was allowed, the Court of Appeal judgment was set aside, and the trial judgments on liability and damages were restored.

The respondent brought an action against the appellants and during an examination on discovery, the appellants requested the production of numerous documents.

The respondent sought a confidentiality agreement to prevent the documents from being disclosed to third parties, which the appellants refused.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that there is an implied rule of confidentiality in Quebec civil procedure regarding information obtained at an examination on discovery.

The Court found that an examination on discovery is not a sitting of the court and that the implied rule of confidentiality protects privacy interests recognized in the Quebec Charter and the Civil Code of Québec.

The appellant municipality contracted out garbage collection to subcontractors.

The union filed motions under s. 45 of the Labour Code to have the certification and collective agreement transferred to the subcontractors.

The labour commissioner and Labour Court granted the motions, finding a partial transfer of the operation of the undertaking.

The Superior Court quashed the decision, but the Court of Appeal restored it.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Labour Court's decision was not patently unreasonable and that s. 45 could apply to subcontracting where the transferee receives a right to operate part of the transferor's undertaking with sufficient autonomy.

Ivanhoe contracted out its janitorial services to Moderne, and the union's certification and collective agreement were transferred to Moderne.

When the contract expired, Ivanhoe engaged four new contractors, and Moderne dismissed its employees.

The union applied to transfer the certification to the new contractors, while Ivanhoe applied to cancel the certification.

The labour commissioner and Labour Court transferred the certification but not the collective agreement to the new contractors, and dismissed Ivanhoe's petition for cancellation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the standard of review is patent unreasonableness.

The Court found that the Labour Court's application of the organic definition of an undertaking and the theory of retrocession to find a legal relationship between successive employers was not patently unreasonable.

The refusal to transfer the collective agreement and the dismissal of the cancellation petition were also upheld.

The representative plaintiffs and 229 other investors purchased debentures in Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. under the federal Business Immigration Program.

After the investment failed, the plaintiffs commenced a class action alleging breach of fiduciary duty by the defendants.

The defendants applied to strike the representative claim under Rule 42 of the Alberta Rules of Court.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the defendants' appeal, holding that the class action should be allowed to proceed as the class was capable of clear definition, there were common issues of law and fact, success for one meant success for all, and the representatives adequately represented the class.

The Court allowed the plaintiffs' cross-appeal, finding that individualized discovery of all class members was premature.

The appellant, representing minority shareholders of Asbestos Corp., sought an order from the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) under s. 127 of the Securities Act to remove the trading exemptions of the Quebec Government and its Crown corporation after they acquired control of Asbestos Corp. without making a follow-up offer to minority shareholders.

The OSC declined to exercise its public interest jurisdiction, finding insufficient transactional connection to Ontario and no intention to avoid Ontario law.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the OSC's decision, ruling that the standard of review is reasonableness and that the OSC properly exercised its preventive, non-remedial discretion based on relevant factors.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of sexual offences involving children.

Prior to jury selection, he applied to challenge potential jurors for cause, arguing that the nature of the charges gave rise to a realistic possibility of juror partiality.

The trial judge rejected the application and the accused was convicted.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the accused failed to establish a widespread bias in the community arising from the nature of the charges that would be incapable of being set aside by jurors despite trial safeguards.

Trinity Western University (TWU), a private Christian institution, applied to the British Columbia College of Teachers (BCCT) for permission to assume full responsibility for its teacher education program.

The BCCT denied the application, arguing it was contrary to the public interest because TWU's Community Standards, which prohibited 'homosexual behaviour', were discriminatory.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the BCCT had jurisdiction to consider discriminatory practices, its decision was unjustified.

The Court found that the BCCT failed to properly reconcile the equality rights of public school students with the freedom of religion of TWU students.

Absent concrete evidence that training teachers at TWU fosters discrimination in public schools, the freedom to hold religious beliefs must be respected.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the order of mandamus directing the BCCT to approve the program.

The accused was charged with importing heroin and using a false passport after being threatened by a man in Belgrade who said he would harm her mother if she did not comply.

She raised the common law defence of duress, successfully arguing that the strict immediacy and presence requirements of section 17 of the Criminal Code violated section 7 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that it is a principle of fundamental justice that only voluntary conduct should attract criminal liability.

The Court found that section 17's requirements were too restrictive, infringed section 7, and could not be justified under section 1.

The Crown's appeal was dismissed and the acquittal upheld.

The appellants challenged the constitutionality of the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997, which created a new governance and funding model for Ontario school boards.

The appellants argued the legislation violated denominational education rights under s. 93(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867 by removing local taxation powers and limiting financial control.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the legislation did not prejudicially affect denominational rights, as it only regulated secular aspects of education and provided fair and equitable funding.

The Court also held that the delegation of taxation powers to the Minister of Finance was constitutional as it was express and unambiguous.

The accused was charged with sexual offences against former students.

One of the complainants brought a civil action against the accused and the school board.

The accused sought production of the complainant's civil litigation file to assess his motive to fabricate or exaggerate the incidents of abuse.

The trial judge ordered the production of the file.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that solicitor-client privilege should only yield to an accused's right to make full answer and defence in rare circumstances where core issues going to guilt are involved and there is a genuine risk of wrongful conviction.

The Court established a two-stage 'innocence at stake' test, which was not met in this case.

The appellants acquired interests in a foreign partnership that had incurred substantial potential losses from a condominium project.

The original partners withdrew, and the appellants sold the condominium project back to them at fair market value, realizing a large loss which they claimed on their Canadian income tax.

The appellants also continued to profitably manage a low-rent apartment building that was an ancillary asset of the partnership.

The Minister disallowed the losses, and the lower courts upheld this decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that the three essential ingredients of a valid partnership—carrying on business, in common, with a view to profit—were met, notwithstanding that the primary motivation was to acquire a tax loss.

The respondents, two Canadian citizens who were 18 at the time of the offences, were wanted in the State of Washington for three counts of aggravated first degree murder.

The Minister of Justice ordered their extradition without seeking assurances that the death penalty would not be imposed.

The respondents challenged the constitutionality of this decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while sections 6(1) and 12 of the Charter were not directly violated, extraditing the respondents to face the death penalty without assurances violated their rights under section 7 of the Charter.

The Court found that the principles of fundamental justice, informed by Canada's abolition of the death penalty, international trends, and concerns over wrongful convictions, require the Minister to seek assurances in all but exceptional cases.

The violation could not be justified under section 1.

The Minister's appeal was dismissed.

The accused was charged with kidnapping and sexual assault of a mentally disabled woman.

At trial, the Crown did not call the complainant to testify, instead relying on expert evidence to establish her incompetence and seeking to admit her out-of-court statements under the principled approach to hearsay.

The trial judge admitted the statements and convicted the accused of kidnapping and assault causing bodily harm.

The Court of Appeal quashed the assault conviction and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that the expert evidence was improperly admitted as testimonial competence is within the trial judge's expertise, and that necessity for admitting hearsay was not established since the complainant was available and there was no evidence that testifying would cause her trauma.