Geoffrey Alan Beasley

The applicant sought certiorari to quash a decision of a provincial court judge who assumed jurisdiction over sentencing after the original judge who received the guilty pleas became ill.

The issue was whether jurisdiction could be transferred under s. 669.2 of the Criminal Code where the original judge was expected to return within a reasonable time.

The court held that the lower court erred by treating the provision as a case management tool and assuming jurisdiction despite a reasonable expectation that the seized judge would return shortly.

Because the statutory requirement that the original judge be unable to continue was not established, jurisdiction should have remained with the judge who accepted the guilty pleas.

The impugned order was quashed.

The accused was charged with possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking.

He challenged the constitutionality of the reverse onus provision in the Narcotic Control Act, which presumed an intent to traffic upon proof of possession.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the provision violated the presumption of innocence under s. 11(d) of the Charter.

Furthermore, the Court established a two-part proportionality test for s. 1 of the Charter and found that the reverse onus clause failed the rational connection component, as possession of a small quantity of narcotics does not rationally support an inference of intent to traffic.

The applicant trade union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that three printing companies should be treated as a single employer.

The original company, Hunter Printing, experienced financial difficulties and eventually ceased operations, laying off its employees.

The owner subsequently commenced operations through two new corporate entities, utilizing the same equipment and performing similar work.

The Board found that the companies carried on associated or related businesses under common control and direction.

The Board exercised its discretion to make a single employer declaration, ensuring the union's bargaining rights continued with respect to the new entities, despite there currently being no employees in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent parent company and its bankrupt subsidiary were a single employer.

The union sought this declaration to realize an unsatisfied arbitration award of $3,403.39 against the subsidiary.

The Board found that while the entities were under common control and direction, it would not exercise its discretion to make the declaration.

The Board held that the purpose of section 1(4) is to preserve bargaining rights, not to provide a 'deep pocket' for debt recovery where the subsidiary had ceased operations and no work had been transferred.

The application was dismissed, with one member dissenting.