Gérard V. La Forest

The appellants, shareholders in two corporations that went into receivership, brought an action against the respondent auditors alleging negligent misrepresentation in the preparation of the corporations' audit reports.

The appellants claimed they relied on these reports to make further investments and to monitor their existing shareholdings.

The Supreme Court of Canada applied the Anns/Kamloops test and held that while a prima facie duty of care existed, it was negated by policy considerations regarding indeterminate liability.

The audit reports were prepared to assist shareholders collectively in overseeing management, not for individual investment decisions.

Furthermore, the Court held that claims regarding the devaluation of existing shares due to an inability to oversee management properly belonged to the corporation under the rule in Foss v. Harbottle and should have been brought as a derivative action.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant Indian band sought a declaration that a permit granting a right-of-way for an electric power transmission line across its reserve was void.

The permit, issued under s. 28(2) of the Indian Act, was granted for 'such period of time as the right-of-way is required'.

The band argued that this indefinite period amounted to a permanent alienation requiring a formal surrender under s. 37 of the Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the permit was validly issued under s. 28(2), as the duration of the easement, while indeterminate, was bounded by an ascertainable event (when the line is no longer required) and did not constitute a grant in perpetuity.

The appellant challenged a murder conviction arising from a warrantless police entry into his dwelling, subsequent detention, questioning, seizure of clothing, later warrant search, and fingerprinting.

The majority held that the officers lacked both subjective and objective reasonable grounds to arrest before entering and that, absent hot pursuit or other exceptional circumstances, police must obtain prior judicial authorization to enter a dwelling to make an arrest.

The court further held that the appellant’s right to counsel was breached from the moment of detention because he was not properly informed or given a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel before questioning.

Applying the Collins and Stillman frameworks, the majority excluded the impugned statements, fingerprints, and real evidence, set aside the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant insurer appealed a decision finding that the respondent insureds were entitled to recover replacement costs under a property insurance policy.

The insureds' hotel was destroyed by fire, and they signed a contract for reconstruction before selling the property to a third party on the condition that the hotel would be rebuilt according to the contract.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the insureds had satisfied the policy requirement to effect replacement.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which had allowed a Crown appeal from an acquittal and ordered a new trial because the trial judge stated a conclusion before the trial was completed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal's reasons for ordering a new trial.

The accused was convicted of assault causing bodily harm.

At trial, the Crown did not call the victim of the assault to testify, relying instead on other witnesses and forensic evidence.

The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction, holding that the Crown had a duty to call the victim.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, ruling that the Crown has broad discretion in deciding which witnesses to call, including the victim, and is not required to call all material witnesses absent an abuse of process.

The appellant city hired a temporary employee through a personnel agency.

The respondent union sought to have the employee included in its bargaining unit, arguing the city was the real employer.

The Labour Court found that the city was the real employer based on its control over the employee's working conditions and day-to-day work.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Labour Court's decision was not patently unreasonable, affirming that a comprehensive approach considering multiple factors is appropriate for identifying the real employer in a tripartite relationship.

The appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault.

The trial judge sentenced him to 12 months and 6 months concurrently, finding neither assault was a 'major sexual assault' under the Alberta Court of Appeal's starting-point approach.

The Court of Appeal overturned the sentence, substituting a global sentence of 5 years, holding the trial judge erred in not classifying the first assault as major.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the trial judge's sentence, holding that a sentencing judge's failure to categorize an offence according to judicially created categories is not an error in principle, and an appellate court should only intervene if the sentence is demonstrably unfit or if there is an error in principle, failure to consider a relevant factor, or overemphasis of appropriate factors.

The accused was charged with breaking and entering and possession of break-in instruments after an apartment manager found two men in a parkade and was handed the accused's expired driver's licence.

At trial, the accused did not testify.

The trial judge convicted the accused, relying in part on the accused's failure to testify to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that the right to silence and the presumption of innocence preclude a trier of fact from using an accused's silence at trial as inculpatory evidence to help establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of a municipal surtax on non-residential buildings imposed by the City of Montreal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that the surtax is a direct tax raised for provincial purposes within the meaning of s. 92(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court found that the taxes fall into the category of true land taxes.

The appellant challenged a Quebec Court of Appeal decision upholding dismissal of his action for damages after his employer eliminated his regional manager role during restructuring and offered him management of a single underperforming branch without a guaranteed base salary.

The Supreme Court held that under Quebec civil law, constructive dismissal occurs where an employer unilaterally imposes substantial changes to the essential terms of employment, assessed objectively from the standpoint of a reasonable person at the time of the offer.

The Court found the offer constituted a significant demotion and materially undermined the employee's financial security, and that post-offer sales evidence was irrelevant because those results were not reasonably foreseeable when the offer was made.

The appeal was allowed and one year's remuneration in lieu of notice was fixed at $150,000, with interest, additional indemnity and costs.

The City of Montreal requested the intervention of the Conseil des services essentiels after the union instructed its members to refuse to work overtime during a holiday weekend.

The Council ordered the union and its members to report to work for regular and overtime hours as requested.

The union sought judicial review, arguing the Council exceeded its jurisdiction and violated natural justice by failing to record the hearing.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Council acted within its specialized jurisdiction in making the remedial order to protect public services, and the order was not patently unreasonable.

The Court also found that the lack of a transcript did not violate natural justice as the reviewing judge had an adequate record.

The Director of Investigation and Research applied for an order requiring Southam to divest itself of several community newspapers, alleging the acquisitions substantially lessened competition in the print advertising market.

The Competition Tribunal found a substantial lessening of competition only in the real estate print advertising market on the North Shore and ordered divestment of either the North Shore News or the Real Estate Weekly.

The Federal Court of Appeal overturned the Tribunal's market definition on the merits but upheld the remedy.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal on the merits, establishing that the Tribunal's decisions on questions of mixed law and fact are subject to a standard of reasonableness simpliciter due to its economic expertise, and restored the Tribunal's original decision.

The appeal on the remedy was dismissed.

The appellant challenged the warrantless taking of hair samples, buccal swabs, dental impressions, and a discarded tissue while in police custody following his arrest for murder.

The majority held that the common law power of search incidental to arrest did not extend to compelled bodily samples or dental impressions, and that those procedures infringed ss. 8 and 7 of the Charter.

The majority further held that the bodily sample evidence was conscriptive and not discoverable by lawful non‑conscriptive means, so its admission would render the trial unfair and require exclusion under s. 24(2).

Although the majority found the seizure of the discarded tissue also breached s. 8, it held that evidence from the mucous sample remained admissible.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The accused was charged with second degree murder after stabbing his wife to death.

At trial, he pleaded manslaughter, arguing he acted in a state of mental unconsciousness due to the combined effect of alcohol and medication.

The jury convicted him of second degree murder.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge erred in his jury charge regarding the burden of proof and reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, adopting the dissenting reasons from the Court of Appeal.

The appellants, two managerial staff members at a coal mine where an explosion killed 26 miners, were charged with manslaughter.

During the trial, the trial judge made a private phone call to a senior member of the Attorney General's staff, requesting the removal of the lead Crown counsel and threatening to take steps to secure that end.

The trial judge subsequently denied the Crown's motion for recusal and later ordered a stay of proceedings due to the Crown's failure to disclose relevant evidence.

The Court of Appeal set aside the stay and ordered a new trial, finding a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's conduct created a reasonable apprehension of bias, which retroactively rendered his order staying the proceedings void.

A new trial was ordered, with costs awarded to the appellants due to the systemic problems and the trial judge's conduct.

The appellant Board of Education discharged a teacher after he wrote abusive and threatening letters to the Board's administration.

The teacher grieved the dismissal, and a majority of the arbitration board ordered his conditional reinstatement, finding his conduct was temporary due to stress.

The Divisional Court quashed the award, but the Court of Appeal restored it.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court held that the arbitration board's decision was patently unreasonable.

The evidence overwhelmingly showed the teacher's conduct was not temporary and that he was unfit to return to the classroom.

The appeal was allowed and the arbitration award quashed.

The debtor company went into receivership with unremitted payroll deductions owed to the Crown.

The Crown claimed priority over the proceeds of the sale of the debtor's inventory based on the deemed trust provisions of the Income Tax Act.

The respondent bank claimed priority based on a previously executed general security agreement and Bank Act security.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the bank's fixed and specific charges took priority over the deemed trust.

The Court rejected the argument that the bank's licence to the debtor to sell inventory in the ordinary course of business constituted a consent to subordinate its security interest to the Crown's deemed trust.

The appellant, born abroad to a Canadian mother and an American father before 1977, applied for Canadian citizenship.

Under the Citizenship Act, children of Canadian fathers were granted citizenship upon application, while children of Canadian mothers were required to undergo a security check and swear an oath.

The appellant's application was rejected due to outstanding criminal charges discovered during the security check.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the differential treatment based on the gender of the Canadian parent violated section 15(1) of the Charter and could not be saved under section 1.

The Court found that applying the Charter to the appellant's application was not an impermissible retrospective application, as it addressed his ongoing status at the time of his application.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder and attempted murder after shooting his stepfather and his stepfather's companion.

At trial, the appellant admitted the actus reus but raised a mental disorder defence under s. 16 of the Criminal Code and argued he lacked the requisite intent.

The trial judge extensively reviewed the mental disorder evidence when discussing the s. 16 defence but only briefly referred back to it when instructing the jury on planning and deliberation.

The trial judge also instructed the jury that hiding the murder weapon could indicate consciousness of guilt.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the jury charge as a whole sufficiently related the mental disorder evidence to the issue of planning and deliberation.

While the trial judge erred in failing to limit the consciousness of guilt instruction to the s. 16 issue, the Court applied the curative proviso as the error was minor and would not have affected the verdict.