Darrell L. Brown

The defendant was charged with two offences: having care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol, and refusing to comply with a lawful demand to provide breath samples.

The Crown proved that the defendant was intoxicated and that police had reasonable and probable grounds to demand a breath sample following a single-vehicle collision.

The defendant claimed insufficient evidence of care and control and argued his injuries provided a reasonable excuse for refusing the breath demand.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the impaired charge but convicted on the refusal charge, finding the defendant's injuries did not provide a reasonable excuse and that his conduct in the breath room demonstrated his refusal was not medically motivated.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood-alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit on January 6, 2012.

The trial was scheduled for April 3, 2013, approximately 15 months after the charges were laid.

The defendant brought a Charter section 11(b) application seeking a stay of proceedings on the grounds of unreasonable delay.

The court analyzed the delay using the framework established in R. v. Morin, considering the overall length of delay, reasons for the delay, prejudice to the accused, and societal interests.

The court found that while approximately 4.5 months of delay were attributable to Crown conduct and institutional factors contributed significantly, the total justiciable delay of approximately 9.75 months fell within acceptable parameters when balanced against the seriousness of the offences and minimal actual prejudice suffered by the defendant.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed from the Court of Appeal's reversal of the CCAA court's decision regarding the priority of pension plan wind-up deficiency claims over court-ordered DIP financing charges.

The majority held that wind-up deficiencies under s. 75(1)(b) of the Pension Benefits Act were subject to a statutory deemed trust under s. 57(4), but that the deemed trust was superseded by the DIP charge by virtue of the doctrine of federal paramountcy.

The majority further held that while the employer-administrator breached its fiduciary duty by failing to ensure the pension plan beneficiaries had adequate notice and representation in the CCAA proceedings, a constructive trust was not an appropriate remedy because the breach did not result in an identifiable asset that it would be unjust for the wrongdoer to retain.

The representative plaintiffs in a certified class action regarding the Canada Life Canadian Employees' Pension Plan moved for approval of a settlement agreement, a variation of trust, and class counsel fees.

The claims involved the ownership of surplus assets, partial wind-ups, and the payment of plan expenses from the fund.

The settlement provided an estimated $54 million in financial benefits to class members, including surplus distribution and contribution holidays.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the legal risks associated with the claims.

The court also approved the variation of the pension trust under the Variation of Trusts Act and the rule in Saunders v. Vautier, distinguishing the Supreme Court's decision in Buschau because the employer supported the variation.

Finally, the court approved class counsel fees of approximately $4.8 million as fair and reasonable given the results achieved and the risks undertaken.

Following a decision in CCAA proceedings, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The court approved an agreement to pay the Retirees' full indemnity legal fees from the Executive Plan fund.

The court declined to make a similar order for the United Steelworkers regarding the Salaried Plan.

The court made no order as to costs for the underlying motions, following conventional CCAA practice.

For the appeal, the Retirees and the USW were awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $40,000, payable jointly and severally by Sun Indalex and the U.S. Trustee.

Indalex Limited, while under CCAA protection, obtained a super-priority charge for DIP financing and subsequently sold its assets.

The sale proceeds were insufficient to cover both the DIP lenders and the deficiencies in Indalex's underfunded pension plans.

The Court of Appeal held that a deemed trust under s. 57(4) of the Pension Benefits Act applied to the pension deficiencies and took priority over the DIP lenders' super-priority charge, as no explicit finding of federal paramountcy had been made.

Furthermore, the Court found that Indalex breached its fiduciary duties as the pension plans' administrator by failing to protect the beneficiaries' interests during the CCAA proceedings, justifying a constructive trust over the reserve fund.

The applicant unions filed grievances alleging that the responding employers violated the provincial collective agreement by failing to remit the proper contribution amounts to multi-employer benefit plans.

Following the enactment of an 8% retail sales tax on group insurance premiums, the employers took the position that their negotiated contribution amounts were tax-inclusive, effectively reducing the net amount remitted to the funds.

The employers argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to enforce a tax statute.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to interpret the collective agreement and held that the negotiated contribution amounts were exclusive of the retail sales tax.

The employers were required to pay the tax in addition to the full contribution amounts specified in the collective agreement.

The applicant applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

A dispute arose over the number of employees in the bargaining unit, specifically whether temporary agency workers should be included.

The Board found that despite the 'all employee' description in the collective agreement, neither the union nor the employer ever intended for agency workers to be part of the bargaining unit.

The Board concluded that agency workers are not employees in the bargaining unit for the purposes of section 57 of the Labour Relations Act, and directed the matter to be relisted to determine the voluntariness of the petition.

The applicant union applied under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act alleging a sale of a business or related employer status between Port Weller Dry Docks and Hamilton Marine.

The respondent and intervener raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked constitutional jurisdiction because Hamilton Marine's business of performing running repairs on ships fell under federal jurisdiction.

The Board found that Hamilton Marine's operations were an essential component of navigation and shipping, and that its business extended beyond the limits of Ontario.

Consequently, the Board held that the labour relations of Hamilton Marine's employees were governed by the Canada Labour Code, not provincial legislation, and terminated the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction.