Edward A. Gores

This decision sanctions the CCAA Plans of Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, JTI-Macdonald Corp., and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., effecting a global settlement of all tobacco-related claims in Canada.

The court reviews the structure, allocation, and fairness of the plans, including the creation of a $1 billion Cy-près Foundation, and addresses objections from social stakeholders.

The court finds the plans fair, reasonable, and in the public interest, and grants the requested relief, including third-party releases and the appointment of plan administrators.

The appellant provincial government appealed from a declaration that the Attorney General's confidential Cabinet report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council must form part of the record on judicial review of the government's response to a judicial compensation commission's recommendations.

Applying the framework developed in the companion appeal, the Court held that the party seeking production of a confidential Cabinet document must first establish some basis to believe the document may contain evidence tending to show the government failed to meet a Bodner requirement.

Upon inspection, only two components of the report — the discussion of government-wide implications and the communications plan — provided such evidence, as they referenced labour relations considerations and political communications concerns that may not constitute legitimate bases for departing from the commission's recommendations.

The Court further held that the public interest in disclosure of those two components outweighed the public interest in their continued confidentiality, given their importance to the reviewing court's ability to assess the merits of the Bodner review.

The appeal was allowed in part to narrow the scope of the required production accordingly.

In an administrative law appeal, the appellant municipality challenged a referral decision by a provincial human rights commission to appoint a board of inquiry regarding alleged discriminatory school-funding arrangements affecting a minority-language school community.

The Court held that referral decisions at this preliminary screening stage are reviewable on reasonableness, with strong judicial restraint against premature intervention in ongoing administrative processes.

The Court clarified that older jurisdictional framing tied to preliminary questions should no longer govern this context.

Applying the proper standard, the commission had a reasonable basis in law and on the evidence to refer the novel and complex complaints for inquiry.

The appellant, an adult in need of protection, was subject to a plan of care proposed by the Minister of Health.

The Family Court judge approved the plan but added a condition prohibiting placement outside the Halifax region.

The Court of Appeal held the Family Court exceeded its jurisdiction, ruling it could only accept or reject the Minister's plan.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the Family Court's statutory duty to ensure the adult's best interests includes the jurisdiction to attach reasonable terms and conditions to the Minister's proposed plan of care.

The parties cohabited for approximately 10 years.

Following separation, the respondent applied for a declaration that the definition of 'spouse' in s. 2(g) of the Nova Scotia Matrimonial Property Act was unconstitutional for failing to provide her with the presumption of an equal division of matrimonial property, in violation of s. 15(1) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the exclusion of unmarried cohabiting persons of the opposite sex from the Act is not discriminatory within the meaning of s. 15(1).

The distinction does not affect the dignity of these persons and respects the fundamental personal autonomy and choice of individuals who decide not to marry.

The respondent leased two helicopters to Pegasus Helicopters under agreements containing an option to purchase at fair market value.

The leases were not registered under the Conditional Sales Act.

When Pegasus defaulted on its bank loans, the appellant bank appointed a receiver.

The respondent claimed priority to the helicopters, arguing the leases were not conditional sales.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the leases contained true options to purchase, giving the lessee the unilateral right to compel a sale, and therefore fell within the definition of a conditional sale under the Act.

Because the leases were unregistered, the respondent's reservation of title was void against the appellants.