Claire L'Heureux-Dubé

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal, agreeing with the dissenting judge and the Tax Court.

The Court held that the property in question retained its character as inventory in the hands of the appellant company after being acquired from a subsidiary.

The appellant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory judgment that dismissed his motion to use a pseudonym in a civil action, seal the record, and impose a publication ban.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal from the decision of a judge of the Court of Appeal refusing leave, granting leave to appeal on the basis that the judgment at first instance raised questions of public importance and interest.

A stay previously granted remained in effect pending the Court of Appeal's ruling on the merits.

The United States of America appealed a decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal regarding the extradition of the respondent for immigration offences.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal from the bench, adopting the dissenting reasons of Hetherington J.A. The Court set aside the Court of Appeal's judgment and restored the order of committal for extradition.

The appellants were acquitted at trial on charges of keeping gambling devices and keeping a common gaming house.

The Crown appealed to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, which allowed the appeals and ordered new trials, finding that the police seizure of gambling devices in business establishments open to the public did not violate the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the accused's appeals, adopting the reasons of the Court of Appeal that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in a business establishment open to the public.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault and kidnapping after carrying the complainant from a trailer without her clothes, transporting her 40 miles to a remote cabin, tying her to a bed and having sexual intercourse with her.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the majority (5-4) held that the trial judge erred in refusing to permit cross-examination on the complainant's medical records for the purpose of determining whether there was evidence supporting a defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent or an allegation of fabrication.

All nine justices agreed that s. 265(4) of the Criminal Code, which imposes the air of reality test for the defence of mistaken belief in consent, does not violate ss. 11(d) or 11(f) of the Charter.

The Court extensively discussed the principles governing cross-examination of sexual assault complainants on medical records, the privacy interests at stake, and the proper scope of the air of reality threshold applicable to all criminal defences.

The appellants appealed from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal which allowed the Crown's appeals from their acquittals for possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking and ordered new trials.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the trial judge erred in law by treating the Oliver case as establishing binding standards for substance analysis and by finding reasonable doubt after previously indicating satisfaction with the proof.