Douglas C. Mitchell

A lawyer referred his clients to a financial advisor who was his personal friend, and over a period of four years repeatedly endorsed and encouraged the clients to invest with the advisor's firm.

The investments turned out to be part of a Ponzi scheme and the clients lost over $5 million.

The trial judge dismissed the professional liability claim, finding no causal link between the lawyer's faults and the clients' losses.

The Quebec Court of Appeal reversed, finding the trial judge had assessed the evidence through a distorting lens leading to palpable and overriding errors.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Court of Appeal correctly identified palpable and overriding errors and that the lawyer's breaches of his duty to advise and duty of loyalty were a true cause of the clients' losses; the intervening fraud did not break the chain of causation.

The Court dismissed an appeal challenging a personal oppression order against a corporate director under s. 241(3) of the Canada Business Corporations Act.

It reaffirmed a two-pronged framework requiring that oppressive conduct be attributable to the director and that personal liability be fit in all the circumstances.

The Court identified fairness, narrow tailoring to rectify oppression, vindication of reasonable stakeholder expectations, and consistency with the broader corporate law context as guiding principles.

On the facts, the director’s lead role in the non-conversion decision and personal benefit through increased corporate control supported personal liability, and the pleadings were sufficient to ground that remedy.

The media organizations challenged rules and a directive that limited filming, taking photographs, and conducting interviews to predetermined locations in courthouses, and prohibited the broadcasting of official audio recordings of hearings.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while these activities are protected by s. 2(b) of the Charter and the measures infringe freedom of expression, the limits are reasonable and justified under s. 1.

The measures advance the pressing and substantial objective of maintaining the fair administration of justice by ensuring the serenity of hearings, protecting the privacy of litigants, and reducing stress on witnesses.

The appellant applied for authorization to institute a class action against the municipality, alleging that property tax increases exceeded the statutory 5% ceiling.

He sought a declaration that the tax by-laws were inconsistent with the municipal charter and a refund of the overpayments.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the lower courts' refusal to authorize the class action, finding that the facts alleged did not justify the conclusions sought, as a simple declaration of inconsistency without quashing the by-laws could not legally ground a claim for a tax refund.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed a decision striking down portions of the Tobacco Act and the Tobacco Products Information Regulations.

The respondent tobacco manufacturers cross-appealed the provisions upheld by the lower court.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the restrictions on tobacco advertising, sponsorship, and the requirement for 50% health warning labels infringed the manufacturers' freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, these limits were demonstrably justified under s. 1.

The Court found that Parliament's objectives of protecting public health and preventing youth smoking were pressing and substantial, and the measures chosen were proportional and minimally impairing.

Constitutional appeals challenging federal tobacco advertising and labelling restrictions.

The Court held that Parliament had authority under the criminal law power to legislate in relation to tobacco advertising, promotion, and warning requirements aimed at protecting public health.

A majority further held that the impugned advertising ban, trademark restrictions, and unattributed package warning provisions infringed freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter and were not justified under s. 1 because the government failed to demonstrate minimal impairment.

Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 of the Act were declared of no force or effect.

The appellant bank, as assignee of a bankrupt subcontractor's accounts receivable, brought a delictual action against the respondent owner (Hydro-Québec) for failing to disclose geotechnical reports that revealed poor soil conditions and errors in the original design.

The trial judge allowed the action, finding the owner acted fraudulently by hiding the information, which led to the subcontractor's financial ruin.

The Court of Appeal reversed this decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part, holding that the Court of Appeal erred in overturning the trial judge's findings of fact without demonstrating a palpable and overriding error.

The Court affirmed that a contracting party can be delictually liable to a third party (the subcontractor) for failing to act reasonably, which includes a duty to inform in the context of a large construction project where the owner possesses superior expertise and knowledge of design errors.