Claire L'Heureux-Dubé

The accused was charged with possession of child pornography under s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

He challenged the constitutionality of the provision, arguing it violated his right to freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the prohibition on possession of child pornography infringes s. 2(b), it is largely justified under s. 1 as a reasonable limit to protect children from harm.

However, the Court found the law overbroad in two peripheral applications: self-created expressive material held exclusively for personal use, and private recordings of lawful sexual activity created by or depicting the accused for private use.

The Court read in exceptions for these two categories and upheld the law, allowing the Crown's appeal and remitting the matter for trial.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder after taking the life of his severely disabled daughter.

At trial, the judge removed the defence of necessity from the jury after closing addresses and instructed the jury not to concern itself with the penalty.

Following conviction, the trial judge granted a constitutional exemption from the mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 10 years.

The Court of Appeal restored the mandatory minimum sentence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals against conviction and sentence, holding that there was no air of reality to the defence of necessity, the trial was not rendered unfair by the timing of the ruling or the judge's instructions, and the mandatory minimum sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter given the gravity of the offence.

The appellant, a gay and lesbian bookstore, challenged the constitutionality of Customs legislation that authorized the interception and prohibition of obscene materials.

Customs officials had repeatedly delayed, confiscated, or prohibited materials imported by the bookstore, often misclassifying non-obscene gay and lesbian erotica as obscene.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the Customs legislation infringed freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, it was largely justified under s. 1 as a reasonable limit to prevent the importation of harmful obscene materials.

However, the Court struck down the reverse onus provision in s. 152(3) of the Customs Act as it applied to obscenity determinations, ruling that the burden of proving obscenity must rest on the Crown.

The Court also found that while the legislation itself did not violate s. 15(1) equality rights, its systemic misapplication by Customs officials had discriminated against the gay and lesbian community.

The appellants appealed a finding that they infringed the respondents' patent for a dual action washing machine agitator with flexible vanes.

The appellants argued the patent was invalid due to double patenting, asserting that an earlier patent already covered the invention or rendered it obvious.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, affirming the validity of the patent and the finding of infringement.

In doing so, the Court established that 'purposive construction' is the proper approach to patent claims construction for both validity and infringement analyses.

The appellant school board appealed a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal affirming a Superior Court judgment that granted the respondent union's application for judicial review of an arbitral award.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that the arbitrator's award, which interpreted the collective agreement regarding the assignment of teaching staff, contained no patently unreasonable error.

The Court held that the arbitrator's approach was rational and based on the collective agreement and education legislation, meaning it could not be challenged before the courts.

The respondent challenged the constitutionality of third-party spending limits in the Canada Elections Act and obtained an interlocutory injunction restraining their enforcement during a federal election.

The Attorney General of Canada applied to the Supreme Court of Canada for a stay of the injunction.

The Court granted the stay, holding that the balance of convenience favours maintaining duly enacted legislation pending a complete constitutional review, as it must be assumed to serve a valid public purpose.

The Musqueam Indian Band surrendered reserve land to the Crown for leasing.

The land was subdivided, serviced, and leased to individuals for 99 years.

The leases provided for rent reviews, stating rent should be 6 percent of the 'current land value' of 'unimproved lands'.

The parties disagreed on whether 'current land value' meant fee simple value off-reserve or leasehold value on-reserve, and whether 'unimproved' meant unserviced.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that 'current land value' refers to the hypothetical fee simple value of the land on the reserve, which requires a 50 percent discount from comparable off-reserve land to account for Indian reserve features.

The Court also held that 'unimproved' means unserviced, so servicing costs must be deducted from the land value.

The accused was acquitted of trafficking in cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding the admissibility of co-conspirator hearsay evidence under the Carter test.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the accused's appeal, confirming that the trial judge made two clear misdirections in formulating the Carter test.

The Court held that the Crown met the heavy burden of establishing with reasonable certainty that, had the jury been properly charged, the verdict would not necessarily have been the same.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault.

At trial, he challenged the constitutionality of the 'rape shield' provisions in s. 276 of the Criminal Code, which restrict the admissibility of evidence of a complainant's prior sexual activity.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of the provisions, finding that they do not violate the accused's right to make full answer and defence, the right to a fair trial, or the right against self-incrimination.

The Court held that the provisions properly balance the accused's rights with the need to protect the integrity of the trial process and the privacy of complainants.

The respondent, a former provincial cabinet minister, faced sexual harassment complaints before the British Columbia Human Rights Commission.

The proceedings were delayed for over 30 months.

The respondent sought a stay of proceedings, arguing the delay violated his section 7 Charter rights to liberty and security of the person due to the severe stigma and psychological stress he suffered.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the Charter applies to the Commission, the respondent's section 7 rights were not engaged because the state did not interfere with his fundamental life choices or psychological integrity in a manner protected by section 7.

Furthermore, under administrative law principles, the delay did not compromise the fairness of the hearing and was not so inordinate as to amount to an abuse of process.

The appeal was allowed and the stay of proceedings was lifted.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal that ordered a new trial after finding a statement made by the accused in a police van inadmissible.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the Court of Appeal erred by reassessing the trial judge's weighing of the evidence on the voir dire without showing a serious, specific, and determining error.

The guilty verdicts for first degree murder and conspiracy to murder were restored.

The appellant, convicted of first-degree murder in 1987, had her case reviewed by the Self Defence Review Committee regarding battered-woman syndrome.

The Committee recommended referring her case to the Court of Appeal to determine if new information was admissible as fresh evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the Court of Appeal's decision that the information, including a new affidavit from a doctor, was not admissible as fresh evidence, and dismissed the appeal.

The Province of Alberta challenged the constitutionality of the federal Firearms Act, which required the licensing and registration of all firearms, including ordinary rifles and shotguns.

Alberta argued the law fell under provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the legislation as a valid exercise of Parliament's criminal law power.

The Court found the pith and substance of the law was directed to enhancing public safety by controlling access to firearms through prohibitions and penalties, and its effects on provincial jurisdiction were merely incidental.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual intercourse with a female under 14 and indecent assault, arguing that the trial judge erred in rejecting a line of evidence he sought to adduce.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the admission of the evidence was a matter within the trial judge's discretion and there was no basis to interfere with the exercise of that discretion.

The appellants refused to hire or dismissed the complainants because of physical anomalies (spinal anomalies and Crohn's disease) that did not result in functional limitations.

The complainants alleged discrimination based on handicap under s. 10 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the definition of 'handicap' includes physical anomalies that do not result in functional limitations, as well as perceived handicaps.

The Court emphasized a multidimensional approach that considers the socio-political dimension of handicap, focusing on human dignity and the right to equality.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant, a bus driver, was sued for sexual battery, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty arising from alleged nonconsensual sexual activity.

He sought a declaration that his homeowner's insurance provider had a duty to defend him.

The Supreme Court of Canada, relying on its concurrent decision in Scalera, held that the insurer had no duty to defend.

The Court found that the inherently harmful nature of nonconsensual sexual activity meant any resulting injuries must be deemed intentional, thus falling under the policy's intentional act exclusion.

The Court also rejected the argument that an explicit exclusion for sexual torts in an optional day care endorsement implied coverage under the general policy.

The appellant town terminated its contract with a transportation company for the operation of its municipal transit system and commenced operating the system itself, hiring a significant number of the company's laid-off workers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that a 'sale of a business' had occurred under s. 64 of the Labour Relations Act, binding the town as a successor employer.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the town's appeal, holding that the Board's finding of a nexus between the company and the town was not patently unreasonable given their historical and functional connection.

The British Columbia Securities Commission ordered a registered broker to produce records to assist the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in an investigation.

The broker challenged the constitutional validity of the provincial legislation authorizing the order, arguing it was ultra vires the province.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the legislation was intra vires the province under its power over property and civil rights, as its dominant purpose was the enforcement of domestic securities law through reciprocal cooperation and uncovering foreign violations by domestic registrants.

The respondent company deposited a large pile of soil on its leased property, prompting complaints from neighbours about dust and noise.

The appellant municipality passed resolutions under s. 936 of the Municipal Act declaring the soil a nuisance and ordering its removal.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the municipality had the jurisdiction to declare the soil a nuisance, interpreting the statute purposively.

The Court further held that while jurisdictional questions of municipalities are reviewed on a standard of correctness, their intra vires decisions are reviewed on a deferential standard of patent unreasonableness.

The municipality's decision was found not to be patently unreasonable.

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.