Gérard V. La Forest

A custody and access appeal arising from a post-divorce dispute over whether an access parent could discuss and practise his religion with the children over the custodial parent's objection.

The Court held that the governing standard under the Divorce Act is the best interests of the child, not a freestanding universal harm threshold, though risk of harm may be relevant in assessing the quality of access.

The Court further held that ss. 16(8) and 17(5) of the Divorce Act do not violate Charter guarantees of religion, expression, association, or equality.

The appeal was allowed in part: the religious discussion restrictions were removed or treated as unnecessary in light of undertakings, the wife retained the matrimonial home, certain debt allocations and costs awards were varied, and costs against counsel and the religious society were set aside.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault for allegedly burning her 3½-year-old granddaughter's face on a stove.

At trial, the unsworn child testified against the appellant, and both sides called expert witnesses regarding the burns, the child's memory, and child abuse.

The Supreme Court of Canada ordered a new trial, finding that while the child was properly permitted to testify, the trial judge erred by allowing an expert witness to testify that the child's behaviour indicated long-term abuse and to improperly comment on the child's credibility.

The Court also found errors in the Crown's cross-examination of a defence expert using unproven learned treatises.

The appellant was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon after boarding a public transit train with a .22 calibre rifle wrapped in his jacket.

He argued that he concealed the rifle only to avoid alarming other passengers, and that a firearm is not a 'weapon' under the Criminal Code unless intended to be used as such.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that a firearm is always a weapon under section 2 of the Criminal Code.

The Court further held that the mens rea for the offence of carrying a concealed weapon is established when the accused intentionally conceals an object they know to be a weapon.

The parties separated and agreed the mother would have custody of their child, with the father having access rights.

The father, a Jehovah's Witness, used his access visits to indoctrinate the young child in his religion, which disturbed the child.

The mother sought to restrict his access.

The trial judge ordered that the father could teach his religion but not continually indoctrinate the child or take her to religious activities.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the order, confirming that the sole criterion for access disputes is the best interests of the child under art. 30 of the Civil Code of Lower Canada.

The Court held that the Charter does not apply to private family disputes and that the best interests standard is not unconstitutionally vague.

The appellant was a director of a travel agency that sold tickets for the respondent airline.

The agency collected funds from ticket sales, which were to be held in trust for the airline, but deposited them into a general operating account.

When the agency experienced financial difficulties, the bank seized the funds in the general account to satisfy a demand loan guaranteed by the directors.

The airline sued the directors personally for the breach of trust.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the relationship was one of trust and that the appellant director was personally liable as a constructive trustee because he knowingly assisted in a fraudulent and dishonest breach of trust by the corporation.

The appellant was involved in a fatal motor vehicle accident and taken to a hospital.

While unconscious, a doctor took a blood sample for medical purposes despite the appellant's prior refusal.

The police subsequently obtained the blood alcohol test results from the doctor without a warrant.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the doctors were not acting as agents of the state, the police conduct in obtaining the medical information without a warrant violated the appellant's rights under section 8 of the Charter.

The Court excluded the evidence under section 24(2), allowed the appeal, and ordered a new trial on the criminal negligence charges.

The Canada Labour Relations Board ordered several airlines to produce documents during an investigation of a union's application for amendment of certification.

The airlines refused, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to compel document production outside a formal hearing.

The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the Board's order.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Board's appeal, holding that under section 118(a) of the Canada Labour Code, the Board's power to compel the production of documents may only be exercised in the context of a formal hearing.

The corporate appellants, retail businesses, and their employees sought declarations that the Ontario Retail Business Holidays Act was unconstitutional, alleging it infringed freedom of religion and equality rights under the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellants lacked standing.

The Court found that while there was a serious issue as to the Act's validity and the appellants were directly affected, there were other reasonable and effective ways to bring the issue before the court, as evidenced by their reliance on the evidentiary record of another case.

The Court also held that the appellants could not claim their own religious rights were violated without specific factual evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to commit prison breach, arguing the trial judge improperly drew an adverse inference from his failure to call witnesses.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusions as to guilt operated independently of the adverse inference discussion.

The trial judge had made it clear that the Crown proved its case and the accused's story was unbelievable, making the adverse inference discussion a mere afterthought.

The appellant appealed as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the constitutionality of a search and seizure of foreign cultural property under the Customs Act.

The majority of the Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Court of Appeal's reasons and concluding that the search and the manner in which it was conducted were not unreasonable.

Iacobucci J. dissented, agreeing with the trial judge that the search was unreasonable and the evidence should be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellant appealed his conviction for defrauding a bank of a sum exceeding $1,000.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, with the majority agreeing with the Court of Appeal.

The dissenting judges would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on an amended indictment, finding that while the Crown established the appellant obtained an extension of credit by deceit, the indictment was not framed that way and the Crown failed to show the accused was not misled in his defence.

The Crown appealed as of right from a decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal allowing the accused's appeal from a robbery conviction and ordering a new trial based on fresh evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the fresh evidence should be admitted.

The Court noted that while due diligence is a significant factor in the Palmer test, it is not applied strictly in criminal cases and must be weighed against the other factors in the totality of the circumstances.

The applicants brought a motion for an order abridging the time for hearing an application for leave to appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada denied the motion, stating that notice is abridged only in the most extraordinary situations, such as issues of life and death, which was not the case here.

A terminally ill appellant with ALS challenged the constitutionality of Criminal Code s. 241(b), which prohibited aiding or abetting suicide, arguing infringements of ss. 7, 12 and 15(1) of the Charter.

The majority held that while the prohibition engaged personal autonomy and security of the person, the blanket ban accorded with the principles of fundamental justice because it reflected the sanctity of life and the state's interest in protecting vulnerable persons from abuse.

The majority further held that the provision did not constitute cruel and unusual treatment, and assumed without deciding that any equality infringement was justified under s. 1.

The appeal was dismissed and s. 241(b) was upheld as constitutional.

Appeals concerning whether labour relations at a provincially owned utility's nuclear generating stations were governed by provincial or federal labour legislation.

The majority held that Parliament's declaratory power under s. 92(10)(c) and s. 91(29) validly brought the nuclear facilities within exclusive federal jurisdiction, and that labour relations were integral to the operation and management of those declared works.

A majority also held that atomic energy is a matter of national concern under the peace, order and good government power, and that labour relations at the nuclear facilities formed part of that jurisdiction.

The argument that provincial authority over electrical generation under s. 92A(1)(c) displaced federal authority was rejected.

The appeals were dismissed and the Canada Labour Code was held to apply to employees employed on or in connection with the nuclear facilities.

The respondent opened a free-standing abortion clinic in Nova Scotia.

In response, the provincial government enacted the Medical Services Act and regulations, which prohibited the performance of abortions outside of approved hospitals and denied medical insurance coverage for such services.

The respondent was charged with violating the Act and acquitted at trial on the basis that the legislation was ultra vires the province.

The Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that the legislation was in pith and substance criminal law, which falls under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the federal Parliament, as its primary purpose was to prohibit abortions outside hospitals as socially undesirable conduct.

The Minister of National Revenue petitioned a taxpayer into bankruptcy for unpaid taxes.

The trustee in bankruptcy brought an action against the taxpayer's wife, seeking a declaration that certain assets in her name belonged to the bankrupt's estate.

At trial, Revenue Canada officials testified about the taxpayer's affairs, over the wife's objection that the Income Tax Act prohibited such disclosure.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trustee's action was a proceeding 'relating to the administration or enforcement' of the Income Tax Act under s. 241(3), thereby permitting the disclosure of the confidential tax information.

The appellant and a companion forcibly confined and sexually assaulted a young woman.

While the companion strangled the victim, the appellant held her legs to prevent her from struggling.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder under s. 214(5) of the Criminal Code.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the phrase 'caused the death' in s. 214(5) requires the accused's actions to be a substantial and integral cause of the death.

The Court found that the appellant's act of holding the victim's legs was a substantial cause of her death, as she likely would have resisted the strangulation otherwise.

The appeal was dismissed.

The police received an anonymous tip about a marihuana cultivation operation and conducted a warrantless perimeter search of the appellant's property, as well as a check of his computerized electrical consumption records.

Based on this information, they obtained a search warrant and discovered marihuana plants.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the warrantless perimeter search violated section 8 of the Charter, the check of the electrical records did not, as there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in those records.

The Court concluded that the search warrant was validly issued based on the tip and the electrical records, and that the evidence should not be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The police received informant tips about a marihuana grow operation at the appellant's residence.

Officers conducted a warrantless perimeter search, smelling marihuana and observing vents.

They subsequently obtained a search warrant and discovered a hydroponic grow lab.

The trial judge excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding the perimeter search violated s. 8.

The Court of Appeal reversed this decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the warrantless perimeter search violated s. 8, the search warrant was validly issued based on other compelling evidence.

The Court concluded the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2) as the police acted in good faith reliance on existing law.