Gérard V. La Forest

On a provincial offence appeal, the Court considered whether s. 110 of The North-West Territories Act continued in Saskatchewan through the Saskatchewan Act and whether it required bilingual legislation and permitted use of French in Saskatchewan courts.

The majority held that s. 110 continued in force by virtue of ss. 14 and 16 of the Saskatchewan Act, required Saskatchewan statutes to be enacted, printed and published in English and French, and entitled a party to use either English or French before Saskatchewan courts.

The Court further held that these rights were not entrenched and could be modified unilaterally by Saskatchewan, but only through legislation enacted in the manner and form then required by law, namely bilingual legislation.

The accused had no right to require that proceedings be conducted entirely in French or to be understood without an interpreter, but did have the right to have his plea entered in French.

Because that right was denied, the conviction was quashed.

The appellant appealed his manslaughter conviction to the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing that the trial judge erred in his directions to the jury regarding self-defence.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Court of Appeal's decision to uphold the conviction.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal that allowed the accused's appeal against convictions for conspiracy and mischief due to insufficient jury directions regarding prior inconsistent statements.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, agreeing that the trial judge's directions were insufficient.

The Court also dismissed the accused's motions for an extension of time and a cross-appeal.

The respondent was convicted at trial of sexual assault upon a young girl.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed his appeal, finding that similar fact evidence from other children was inadmissible.

The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The majority of the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the similar fact evidence was admissible to show a system adopted by the respondent and its probative force outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The parties divorced after 26 years of marriage.

The appellant wife had acquired a restaurant and other assets almost exclusively through her own efforts, while the respondent husband, an alcoholic, contributed virtually nothing to child care, household management, or financial provision.

The trial judge ordered an unequal division of marital property, awarding the husband $6,000.

The Court of Appeal set aside this order, holding that equal division was required.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the trial judge's order, finding that the husband's negligible contribution justified departing from the general principle of equal division under section 7(f) of the Marital Property Act.

The appellant town appealed a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal regarding a business tax assessment.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, restoring the Provincial Court's judgment that affirmed the Board of Revision's dismissal of the respondents' complaints.

The Court assumed, without deciding, that the Board had the required jurisdiction, as the issue was raised for the first time before the Supreme Court and it would not be in the interests of justice to delay the proceedings further.

In a criminal appeal following acquittals on conspiracy charges arising from the operation of an abortion clinic, the Court held that the abortion regime in s. 251 of the Criminal Code violated s. 7 of the Charter.

A majority concluded that the therapeutic abortion committee scheme interfered with liberty and security of the person by removing decision-making from pregnant women and by imposing unfair, delay-producing procedural barriers that increased physical and psychological risk.

The Court further held that the infringement was not justified under s. 1 because the legislative means were arbitrary, overbroad, and not proportionate to the objective of protecting the foetus.

The acquittals were restored and s. 251 was struck down.

The appellant appealed his conviction on a charge of extortion, seeking to change his guilty plea.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, adopting the reasons of the Quebec Court of Appeal which found no valid grounds to permit the change of plea.

The appellant appealed as of right from a judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissing an appeal from a conviction for attempting to set fire to a dwelling-house.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal orally, finding that the dissent in the Court of Appeal did not raise a question of law.

The Supreme Court of Canada delivered an oral judgment allowing the appeals and finding the impugned provisions of the Identification of Criminals Act and the Criminal Code to be constitutional.

The Court noted that the issue of retaining fingerprints after acquittal did not arise on the facts of these appeals.

Written reasons were to follow.

The appellant contractor submitted an irrevocable tender for a construction project but subsequently discovered a mathematical error in its calculation.

Prior to the respondent accepting the tender, the appellant advised the respondent of the error and sought to refuse performance.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the case was governed by its previous decision in Ron Engineering, finding that the respondent could validly accept the irrevocable tender to form a binding contract despite being aware of the mistake.

The appeal was dismissed.

The taxpayer was convicted for failing to comply with the Minister's demand for information under the Income Tax Act.

The Minister subsequently made a second demand for the same information, and the taxpayer was convicted again.

The Court of Appeal set aside the second conviction, holding that only one demand could be made.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that further demands by the Minister create fresh time periods for compliance and fresh offences for non-compliance, as the purpose of the provisions is to enforce compliance with the self-assessment system of taxation.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Manitoba Court of Appeal which had overturned the trial judge's finding regarding a gift of a one-half interest in property from a mother to her son.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the Court of Appeal erred in substituting its view of the weight of the evidence for that of the trial judge, who had the benefit of seeing the witnesses testify.

The judgment of the trial judge was restored.

Criminal appeal from conviction for conspiracy to obtain contributions for a governing political party through influence peddling.

The majority held that questioning prospective jurors in private after arraignment and plea, on grounds including possible partiality, formed part of the trial for purposes of s. 577(1) of the Criminal Code and violated the accused's right to be present.

The majority further held that this defect could not be cured by later challenges for cause or by the curative provisions dealing with jury irregularities, and that the process impermissibly intruded into the Code's exclusive scheme for determining juror impartiality.

A new trial was ordered, although the majority indicated agreement with the dissent's resolution of the remaining issues concerning the definition of “person”, the co-conspirators' hearsay exception, and good character instructions.

The appellant appealed her conviction for criminal negligence causing death to the Supreme Court of Canada as of right.

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it was not a case of 'no evidence' and that the appeal was essentially an invitation to review the sufficiency of the evidence, which the Court may not do.

The appellants appealed from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal which allowed the Crown's appeals from their acquittals for possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking and ordered new trials.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the trial judge erred in law by treating the Oliver case as establishing binding standards for substance analysis and by finding reasonable doubt after previously indicating satisfaction with the proof.

The accused was originally convicted of manslaughter.

The Crown appealed, and the Quebec Court of Appeal set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial on the original charge of second-degree murder.

The accused appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the accused's intent is a question of fact, and reinstated the manslaughter verdict, referring the case back to the Court of Appeal for the sentence appeal.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal regarding an inmate disciplinary court matter.

The Supreme Court of Canada quashed the appeal, finding that the issue had become moot due to three factors, two of which arose after leave to appeal was granted.

The appellant appealed as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the sufficiency of an information charging her with theft.

The Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the Court of Appeal that the information met the requirements of s. 510(3) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant was acquitted at trial on a charge of conspiracy to traffic in narcotics following a directed verdict.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that there was evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could reasonably have convicted.