Dickson

The respondent was charged with possession of stolen property, but the information lacked an essential averment.

The trial judge quashed the defective counts after the respondent pleaded not guilty.

The Crown subsequently swore a new information containing the missing words.

The respondent pleaded autrefois acquit, which was refused by the second trial judge, leading to a conviction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal from conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that the trial judge's decision to quash the original information under section 529 of the Criminal Code, rather than amending it, was tantamount to an acquittal, thereby making the plea of autrefois acquit available to the accused.

The appellant was convicted of having sexual intercourse with a female under fourteen years of age, contrary to s. 146(1) of the Criminal Code.

The conduct occurred before the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force, but the trial took place after.

The appellant argued that the statutory denial of a defence of mistake of age violated s. 7 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that applying s. 7 to the substantive elements of an offence committed before the Charter came into force would constitute an impermissible retrospective application of the Charter.

The appellant suffered a neck injury and was rendered a quadriplegic after participating in a dangerous tubing competition at the respondent's ski resort while visibly intoxicated.

The appellant had signed an entry and waiver form without reading it.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the resort, as the promoter of a dangerous sport, owed a duty of care to take all reasonable steps to prevent a visibly intoxicated person from participating.

The resort failed to discharge this duty.

The Court also found that the appellant did not voluntarily assume the legal risk, and the waiver did not relieve the resort of liability because it was not drawn to his attention.

The trial judge's finding of 25% contributory negligence was upheld.

The appellants appealed as of right from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal that allowed the Crown's appeals from their acquittals on charges of trafficking in cocaine and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, finding no error in the Court of Appeal's decision to direct a new trial.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual offences involving three complainants, raising issues regarding delays in reporting the alleged incidents.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal from the bench, finding that the trial judge made no error in law.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal regarding the jurisdiction of the Canadian Transport Commission to authorize the abandonment of railway tracks.

Pursuant to section 75 of the Supreme Court Act, the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal on consent, set aside the Federal Court of Appeal's decision, and restored the decision of the Railway Transport Committee.

The appellant appealed a judgment regarding the interpretation of a contract for the provision of hydro-electric energy.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal as moot in light of its concurrent judgment in Newfoundland (Attorney General) v. Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corp.

The Attorney General of Newfoundland appealed a decision regarding the interpretation of Clause 2(e) of Part I of a statutory lease executed pursuant to the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that both the Trial Division and the Court of Appeal had arrived at the correct construction of the clause, albeit by different routes.

The appellant, a Canadian citizen, was extradited from Brazil to Canada to face fraud charges under an arrangement that prohibited his prosecution for other offences committed prior to the extradition request.

After serving his sentence for the initial charges, the appellant remained in Canada and was subsequently charged with additional offences committed before his extradition.

He argued that the extradition arrangement provided perpetual immunity from prosecution for those prior offences.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the immunity under the Rule of Specialty and the extradition arrangement only lasts until the fugitive has had a reasonable opportunity to return to the requested state.

A constitutional appeal concerning whether Quebec occupational health and safety provisions governing protective re-assignment of a pregnant worker applied to a federal telecommunications undertaking.

The Court held that the provincial scheme, though aimed at worker health and safety, in pith and substance regulated working conditions, labour relations, and the management and operation of undertakings.

As applied to federal undertakings, those matters fell within Parliament's exclusive jurisdiction, rendering the provincial provisions constitutionally inapplicable.

The Court rejected reliance on the double aspect theory and held it unnecessary to decide the operational conflict issue.

Following a collision between two Canadian National Railway trains in Quebec, an inspector from the provincial Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail initiated an investigation under the provincial Act respecting occupational health and safety.

The railway company challenged the investigation, arguing the provincial statute could not constitutionally apply to a federal undertaking.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the provincial occupational health and safety legislation, because of its preventive nature, directly regulates the working conditions and management of the undertaking.

Consequently, the investigative powers under the Act are wholly inapplicable to an interprovincial railway undertaking.

The appellant was charged with unlawful possession of house-breaking instruments contrary to s. 309(1) of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge quashed the indictment, finding the section violated the presumption of innocence in s. 11(d) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal set aside the order.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 309(1) does not create a reverse onus and does not violate s. 11(d) of the Charter, as the Crown must prove all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant, an interprovincial trucking company and federal undertaking, was ordered by a provincial Workers' Compensation Board officer to comply with provincial industrial health and safety regulations regarding safety footwear and safety committees.

The appellant challenged the orders, arguing the provincial regulations were constitutionally inapplicable to a federal undertaking.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the provincial occupational health and safety regulations relate to working conditions, labour relations, and the management of the undertaking, and therefore cannot constitutionally apply to a federal undertaking.

The appeal was allowed and the provincial regulations were declared inapplicable.

The appellant was charged with counselling theft and fraud after offering a hotel security guard money to obtain confidential information containing the names and addresses of hotel employees for a union.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that confidential information does not qualify as property for the purposes of the theft provisions in the Criminal Code, as it cannot be taken or converted in a manner that deprives the owner.

The Court also held that the conduct did not amount to fraud, as the hotel had no intention of dealing commercially with the information and thus faced no risk of economic deprivation.

The appeal was allowed and the acquittals restored.

The Minister of Health and Community Services appealed a decision of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal that set aside a guardianship order and substituted a custody order for two children in protective care.

The Court of Appeal had held that the Minister must prove parental moral turpitude and name specific adoptive parents to obtain a guardianship order.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and reinstated the guardianship order, holding that the sole criterion under the Family Services Act is the best interests of the child.

The Court found that requiring proof of moral turpitude or the naming of specific adoptive parents contradicts the language and spirit of the Act.

The appellant was convicted under the New Brunswick Motor Vehicle Act for failing to yield the right-of-way while driving on an Indian reserve.

He appealed, arguing that he could only be charged under the federal Indian Reserve Traffic Regulations.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that provincial motor vehicle laws of general application apply ex proprio vigore on Indian reserves in the absence of conflicting federal legislation.

The Court found no conflict between the provincial Act and the federal regulations, as the federal regulations merely incorporated provincial laws by reference without demonstrating an intent to exclusively cover the field.

Criminal appeal addressing whether cross-examination of an accused on prior convictions under s. 12(1) of the Canada Evidence Act infringes the right to a fair hearing under s. 11(d) of the Charter.

The majority held the provision is constitutionally valid because prior convictions are admissible on credibility, do not reverse the burden of proof, and can be controlled by limiting instructions, while also recognizing a judicial discretion to exclude such evidence in unusual cases where fairness would be undermined.

On the facts, the majority found no unfairness in admitting the accused's prior non-capital murder conviction given the centrality of credibility and the defence attack on the criminal records of Crown witnesses.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed, with a dissent concluding the prior murder conviction should have been excluded and a new trial ordered.

The appellants appealed their convictions for income tax evasion, arguing that evidence obtained prior to the enactment of the Charter under a provision of the Income Tax Act later found to be unconstitutional should be excluded.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Ontario Court of Appeal that the Charter does not apply retrospectively to searches and seizures conducted before it came into force.

The appellant appealed as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Applying the principles from Collins, Sieben, and Hamill, the Court found no error in the lower court's exercise of its jurisdiction to review the trial judge's finding under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The appeal was dismissed from the bench.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal which found its operations constituted a scheme of pyramid selling under the Combines Investigation Act and issued a prohibition order.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, adopting the reasons of the Federal Court of Appeal.